What is a conspiracy theorist?

Without Rights said:
It is easy. If the building fell in 10-15 (close to freefall speed) or so secs, and demolition makes buildings fall at freefall speed (9-11 sec), then it is a simple conclusion that it is possible that explosives brought down the towers. What makes it not possible?
Click to expand...

Since Arkan is gone, I'll have a crack at this one.

All buildings under controlled demolition fall at approximately free fall speeds.
Therefore, all buildings that fall under free fall speeds are controlled demolitions.

I remember back in Logic 101, on the first day, the professor wrote on the board, "Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted." For instance:
All of Elvis Presley is dead
But only some of the class of dead people are Elvis Presley.

Your statement is a universal affirmative, and you can only partially convert it. Please review a logic textbook.
 
uk_dave said:
No, no please do explain.

Oh and do you mean the entire world MSM or just the USA?
Click to expand...

Well, let's see; Time and (later) Life magazines were owned by Henry Luce, a Harriman/Bush crony (and Skull & Bonesman).

Hearst was known to use the power of the message to manipulate things to his benefit.

Since deregulation, the US MSM is owned by neocon cronies like Murdoch, and defense contractors. But you knew all that.

As for non-US MSM, I don't know about much besides the Anglo-American Harrimanite controlled media. Do I trust Al Jazeera more? Dunno. I haven't figured out their agenda. Besides not being blown up.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
In general, what is P'doh's claim to fame (or shame) in these parts? I see him referred to often!
Click to expand...


He's the SockMaster General. A twoofer who posted here as PDoherty, got suspended, came back as a sock, got banned for that, and has been showing up every few weeks or so ever since, with a long string of sockpuppets. He tries to post with a different style each time, but in short order falls back into familiar patterns which are easily recognized.

He also posts in other fora under his original name, and has provided untold amusement to us here at JREF. He's really quite stupid, you see.
 
Without Rights said:
Perhaps you have info that can prove that it is impossible to bring down a building with explosives at close to freefall speeds.
Click to expand...

Sorry bubba, you said that you could prove that the towers could have collapsed with the help of explosives.

Still waiting.
 
pdoh is a CTer who says he is not a CTer but then changes back and back and back.

His is insane or something. It could be terminal stupidity, but then he never answers all his posts cause he knows people have found him again.

Hi pdoh. He is CT.
 
Without Rights said:
Whatever you want to think. Just more of the same BS rhetoric and baseless accusations. Ad hominem delight.
Click to expand...



Not baseless. Perhaps not correct, but not baseless. And exactly how is IDing you as possibly being PD'oh an "ad hominem"? If you don't know who he is, how did you know you were being insulted?

Also note, even if IDing you as Pd'oh could be considered an insult, it's still not an ad hominem, unless I use that ID to dismiss your arguments, which I haven't done.

Rememeber: "You're an idiot, so your arguments have no value" is an ad hominem. "You're an idiot" is just an insult. Important difference.
 
Firestone said:
No reaction. :(

It's "easily explained", but you just can't do it apparently.
Click to expand...

I said MORE easily explained. All (or many of) those pesky coincidences go away if you open your mind to the possibility that moles held key positions within the government structure. Spies exist. And not just in movies.

Besides, who are you to lecture me about not having the complete and provable explanation of 9/11? All you do is grab whatever the officials feed you as the official version. You do no real work.

Now go! Get those LC guys in court for fraud!
 
Horatius said:
He's the SockMaster General. A twoofer who posted here as PDoherty, got suspended, came back as a sock, got banned for that, and has been showing up every few weeks or so ever since, with a long string of sockpuppets. He tries to post with a different style each time, but in short order falls back into familiar patterns which are easily recognized.

He also posts in other fora under his original name, and has provided untold amusement to us here at JREF. He's really quite stupid, you see.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory!!

I was accused of being P'doh when I first joined here. Yet no proof was given! Sure, some stabs at "evidence," like a breakdown of my writing style and such whatnot. Kind of like you're doing to this other member.

Lots of speculation... But no real proof...
 
Without Rights said:
It is easy. If the building fell in 10-15 (close to freefall speed) or so secs, and demolition makes buildings fall at freefall speed (9-11 sec), then it is a simple conclusion that it is possible that explosives brought down the towers. What makes it not possible?
Click to expand...

The reason this theory violates Occam's Razor is that there are unnecessary entities added. The NIST report explains how the building could fall as a result of damage suffered from the terrorist attack. Your theory takes this damage and adds to it unseen and unheard explosives, and in addition requires explanations as to how the demolition was accomplished, and perhaps more importantly, WHY.
 
Without Rights said:
Perhaps you have info that can prove that it is impossible to bring down a building with explosives at close to freefall speeds.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

All right. Imagine a mother leaving her child in a room with a plate of cookies. She comes back several minutes later to find the cookies gone and crumbs on the kid's face.

Clearly, the question of whether it is POSSIBLE for someone to have broken in, stolen the cookies, and rubbed crumbs on the kid's face is NOT THE ISSUE HERE. Why would anyone even bring up such an absurd possibility?

This is why you are dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory!!

I was accused of being P'doh when I first joined here. Yet no proof was given! Sure, some stabs at "evidence," like a breakdown of my writing style and such whatnot. Kind of like you're doing to this other member.

Lots of speculation... But no real proof...
Click to expand...

Of course not. You'd have been banned, otherwise.
 
HyJinX said:
I call :socks: on Without Rights...

P'doh told me at SLC that he has no less than two socks over here...I think Without Rights is one of those socks. P'doh brings the same questions to the table at SLC as Without Rights does in many posts in this thread.

He claims one sock is Twoofer and the other a Skeptic.
Click to expand...

OH NOES! HE IS TEH COINTELPRO!!!!11
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory!!

I was accused of being P'doh when I first joined here. Yet no proof was given! Sure, some stabs at "evidence," like a breakdown of my writing style and such whatnot. Kind of like you're doing to this other member.

Lots of speculation... But no real proof...
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66727
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67121
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67186
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67594
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68890
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71007
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72385
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76013


Proof enough? Or at least to call this not paranoid?

Then there was the case of Stundie:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69567

who might not actually be P'Doh, but who did not protest being banned as a sock of PD'oh, despite wilingness on the part of the admins to consider such claims.
 
skepticalcriticalguy said:
Yeppo. Which means all the speculation was false. Right?

Just another CT.
Click to expand...


Except that PD'oh is just one guy. So not so much a "C" T as a "J1G" T.


ETA: Oh, and, by not banning you, we admitted the speculation was false, which is something a CTist wouldn't do.
 
Why are you not capable of calculating it yourself? Why can't you get help? Why do you make up stuff instead of thinking and working to unravel the truth. There were no explosives. You do not understand physics do you?
Click to expand...
I can calculate freefall thanks to equations. Confirmed by many scientist, even from your side of the argument. It is well known and documented that the building fell within 9-18 secs but most say a little over 10 seconds. I don't need to the math, it has already been done.
The main problem is you do not know how long it would take either way.
Click to expand...
No but you can use formulas, as many have, to give the tools neccesary to make an informed decision. Does this mean you think the NIST report is wrong in their calculations as to how long the collapse took?
I came up with a 10 percent increase. Let me see, 10 percent of 9.2 seconds is .92 second longer than free fall. Add to 9.2, and you get 10.12 second just due to gravity.
Click to expand...
Out of thin air, I might add.
Yes the top destroys the whole building. Okay it took out most of the building and the cores not supported by the shell fell in the wind.
Click to expand...
The core was built first and was the main support for the tower. For you to say the core "fell in the wind" because it was not supported by the shell is beyond ignorant. The core was built first. Why didn't it fall "in the wind" then? It wasn't supported by the shell.
Darn, I think if I was math challenged I would ask my physics teacher what is going on. 10.12 seconds. What number do you have pdoh like rights man?
Click to expand...
I am not math challenged, I excel in math. I would be interseted in hearing what "math" you used to come up with your simplistic 10% bull hockey.
 
Without Rights said:
The core was built first and was the main support for the tower. For you to say the core "fell in the wind" because it was not supported by the shell is beyond ignorant. The core was built first. Why didn't it fall "in the wind" then? It wasn't supported by the shell.
Click to expand...


Seriously. Dude. You really need to start learning a few things before you go off like this. Pretty much everything in this paragraph is flat out wrong.

Go do some Googling, and then come back and admit your error. It will improve your standings enormously.
 
Horatius said:
Except that PD'oh is just one guy. So not so much a "C" T as a "J1G" T.


ETA: Oh, and, by not banning you, we admitted the speculation was false, which is something a CTist wouldn't do.
Click to expand...

How do you know for a fact that the speculation was/is false?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom