What is a conspiracy theorist?

[Without Rights]

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.

In the 9/11 example we have no "crumbs on the face" of anybody. So without the hard evidence such as "crumbs" would you punish the child. If someone had broken in you would sure feel like a lousy parent.


Your biases are shining through your rhetoric. You discount controlled demolision with a preconcieved notion that it is absurd. If you start with that notion your conclusion is biased.

 

[Horatius]

How do you know for a fact that the speculation was/is false?

A preponderance of the evidence. Same as with every other conclusion. If new evidence comes to light, we may re-evaluate the conclusions.

What other answer did you expect? "The fairies told me"?

 

[beachnut]

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.
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?
Out of thin air, I might add.
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.
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.

No, not out of thin air, I used energy and momentum. You are the thin air special man. You can not even read the papers I cited, nor understand the same. What do you think? Can the WTC towers fall as they did on just gravity? Or are you a no fact CTer? Sorry but since there were no explosives planted, no thermite in the planes, etc, etc, your CT ideas are junk. I assume you are a CTer.

If you can calculate then you can comment on Ross' paper and Greening's work. Or can you? I said I agree with Greening and came up with similar numbers. But you say you can do it so do it.

Only a dolt says the core was built first. Show me one photo of the core standing without the shell. The core can not stand without the shell. Anyone who does not understand this is not very good at research.

Why are CTers so challenged./?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well, I just think it is more easily explained if a few moles in strategic positions within the beurocratic structure were involved.

And so it begins. But explaining how those moles got there, and how they helped things along, raises more complications that their presence solves. And so, either you admit that there's no evidence for them, or you start constructing ever more complicated structures to account for the inconsistencies in the structures you've previously created, when your only evidence is that these structures are required by your hypothesis. And soon you end up suggesting that a conspiracy of 25,000, widespread planted evidence and tons of inaudible, invisible explosives is simpler than a conspiracy of 19 and an unprepared defence system.

Getting back to the subject of the thread, there's a case to be made that a conspiracy theorist is someone who cannot properly apply Occam's Razor.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

About Occam's razor;

I can prove that a building CAN be brought down in the same manner seen on 9/11 with explosives. Just the same these guys are trying to prove that collapse due to structural failue is POSSIBLE.

Viewed in isolation, then, it might seem that CD is more probable. However, any CD theory has implications for how it was accomplished, and as a result the minimal theory required is far more complex than structural collapse scenarios. You can't apply Occam's Razor only to a part of the theory; you need to see the big picture.

Dave

 

[Without Rights]

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.

Ok goggleing finished.

Wikipedia;
"the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade was, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core took the majority of the gravity loads of the building."

Part two;
"The core supported the weight of the entire building and the outer shell containing 240 vertical steel columns called Vierendeel trusses around the outside of the building, which were bound to each other using ordinary steel trusses."
And a picture showing the core going up first
http://news.webshots.com/photo/2071070880037627062vYjsKN

 

[Pardalis]

So, what about you proving the towers could have fallen the way they did with the use of explosives?

 

[beachnut]

Ok goggleing finished.

Wikipedia;
"the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade was, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core took the majority of the gravity loads of the building."

Part two;
"The core supported the weight of the entire building and the outer shell containing 240 vertical steel columns called Vierendeel trusses around the outside of the building, which were bound to each other using ordinary steel trusses."
And a picture showing the core going up first
http://news.webshots.com/photo/2071070880037627062vYjsKN

If you can comprehend this, it says the steel core would fall in the wind without the shell.

Your very post debunks you.

BTW, you need to look at the other photo on the page you photo is showing some core but the shell has to support the core or the wind will blow it over. The core, 110 stories of the core did not go up first, you need to google some more.

 

[Without Rights]

No, not out of thin air, I used energy and momentum. You are the thin air special man. You can not even read the papers I cited, nor understand the same. What do you think? Can the WTC towers fall as they did on just gravity? Or are you a no fact CTer? Sorry but since there were no explosives planted, no thermite in the planes, etc, etc, your CT ideas are junk. I assume you are a CTer.

LOL, please use enegy and momentum to show how you come up with a single digit and a percentage at that. HAHAHA
And you are claiming things with no bases for your assumptions. Such as "ther was no bombs planted" how did you come to this conclusion?

If you can calculate then you can comment on Ross' paper and Greening's work. Or can you? I said I agree with Greening and came up with similar numbers. But you say you can do it so do it.

I am in the process of reading FR Greening's work, I was sent to it today and it is obviously very long so I will comment one way or the other when I am finished.

Only a dolt says the core was built first. Show me one photo of the core standing without the shell. The core can not stand without the shell. Anyone who does not understand this is not very good at research.

Ok, I read the core was erected ahead of the exterior on popular mechanics so I took it at that. The core was built ahead of the rest of the construction but not all way to the top alone, so I will redact that statement, that doesn't change the fact that the core is the main support as show in the wikipedia quotes above.

 

[Firestone]

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.

Yes, that's your claim.
So prove it by giving us a narrative of events, compatible with the known facts, and with less "anomalies" that the standard theory.

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.

I don't lecture you, I simply noted that you made quite a strong claim, and by nature I'm interested in the evidence.
I didn't even ask you to prove that your narrative is correct. I just asked for the narrative that "more easily" explaines the facts.

You didn't provide it. Dave explained why in this post.

Now, you are under no obligation to answer my request. And I am entitled to note that your claims are just that: claims without any base.

 

[beachnut]

Ok goggleing finished.

Wikipedia;
"the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade was, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core took the majority of the gravity loads of the building."

Part two;
"The core supported the weight of the entire building and the outer shell containing 240 vertical steel columns called Vierendeel trusses around the outside of the building, which were bound to each other using ordinary steel trusses."
And a picture showing the core going up first
http://news.webshots.com/photo/2071070880037627062vYjsKN

The core can not take lateral loads. The shell is why the WTC can stand in the wind. The core is why the shell can stand and resist gravity. They had to build the core and the shell together.

 

[Calcas]

I am not math challenged, I excel in math.

Source?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

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.

Hearst was also alive in.. 1890?

While I think you agree with Chomsky (Noam), I'm not sure that it's quite that bad. (Incidently, Harriman's first name is what? I can't confirm what you're saying)


Anyway. I should do the same and focus on this thread.

Yes, yes. That is my whole point. Keep in mind I never said there was a second gunman. All I am saying is if a person looks at all the evidence it is not abundantly clear that the lone gunman theory is the best theory.So if someone chooses to believe otherwise, that doesn't make them a nut job. They have basis for their beliefs, a nut job comes up with things out of thin air. Even if you say it has been debunked, it is a weighing of information by the reader, and it is up to the reader to come to a decision based on what he/she knows.

It's also the responsbilty of the provider to provide correct information. If a reader makes a judgement on wrong information and is proved that it's wrong, a woo will stick with it. Hense, CT.

If you come to the conclusion without recognizing the chance of you being wrong and parade egotistically as the more intelligent one then you have abandonded logic. There is no definitive evidence that unequivocally supports a lone gunman theory (if anybody has some info that maybe missed I will welcome it), therefore to jump to a conclusion that anybody who doesn't support the lone gunman theory is an idiotic woo woo is baseless and childish.

In general, there are a few things that are always woo. Planet X. We didn't land on the moon. 9/11 and so on. While doubting the offical theory, or widely-held one isn't a woo/CT, arguing facts that are demonstraiblity false IS.

 

[Without Rights]

If you can comprehend this says the steel core would fall in the wind without the shell.

It doesn't say that? It says;

with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces

How does that translate into "without the support of the exterior the core would blow over in the wind"?
And anyway, the core failed at the same time as the exterior, not subsequently.

 

[beachnut]

It doesn't say that? It says;

How does that translate into "without the support of the exterior the core would blow over in the wind"?
And anyway, the core failed at the same time as the exterior, not subsequently.

Pay attention.

Wikipedia;
"the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core. The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade was, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core took the majority of the gravity loads of the building."

The facade was... acting as a wind bracing to resist all overturning forces...

Do you understand the shell is the lateral support to keep the WTC up in wind. That is what you looked up but you can not read.

BTW, the facade is the Shell.

Repititin is a learning tool, class; The facade is the Shell.

The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade was, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces;

This is the shell!

The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade was, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces;

The shell. yes?

Gravity is up and down. Wind is sideways, lateral, the shell is the wind king the core is the gravity king. Questions.. reading long?

 

[Without Rights]

It's also the responsbilty of the provider to provide correct information. If a reader makes a judgement on wrong information and is proved that it's wrong, a woo will stick with it. Hense, CT.

You also have to leave room for a counter argument. If a person tries to counter an argument that is said to be proven wrong, that is not sticking with it regardless, that is debate. In a debate somebody wins somebody losses. You kill debate by saying "they are proven wrong and stick with it", but if they have further arguing points that contradict yours then they should stick to it. If it was a debate on anything else it is ecceptable, but when talking about conspiracies it is not ecceptable?

In general, there are a few things that are always woo. Planet X. We didn't land on the moon. 9/11 and so on. While doubting the offical theory, or widely-held one isn't a woo/CT, arguing facts that are demonstraiblity false IS.

And there is your catch 22. In debate, two opposing sides argue their points. One has to be wrong, after the debate is over is the wrong one a woo/CT? Afterall his argument was proven false.
After something is "proven false" to the point where you believe in its falsity , then is everyone who don't agree with your conclusions woo?

 

[Horatius]

It doesn't say that? It says;

How does that translate into "without the support of the exterior the core would blow over in the wind"?
And anyway, the core failed at the same time as the exterior, not subsequently.

That's what "wind bracing" and "resist all overturning forces" means. Expand beyond Wiki, and you'll find the core was designed only to support vertical loads, not lateral loads like winds. That function was embodied entirely in the outer shell.

Ok, I read the core was erected ahead of the exterior on popular mechanics so I took it at that. The core was built ahead of the rest of the construction but not all way to the top alone, so I will redact that statement, that doesn't change the fact that the core is the main support as show in the wikipedia quotes above.

Thanks for acknowledging the mistake. Now we can get into defining terms like "main" and "majority".

 

[Without Rights]

Pay attention.



The facade was... acting as a wind bracing to resist all overturning forces...

Do you understand the shell is the lateral support to keep the WTC up in wind. That is what you looked up but you can not read.

BTW, the facade is the Shell.

Repititin is a learning tool, class; The facade is the Shell.

The 208 feet (63.4 m) wide facade was, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39 inch (100 cm) centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces;

This is the shell!



The shell. yes?

Gravity is up and down. Wind is sideways, lateral, the shell is the wind king the core is the gravity king. Questions.. reading long?

So is it your opinion that the core just fell over in the wind?

 

[beachnut]

It doesn't say that? It says;

How does that translate into "without the support of the exterior the core would blow over in the wind"?
And anyway, the core failed at the same time as the exterior, not subsequently.

Are you able to reseach 9/11 properly?

Core still standing; oops

Yes the old core would fall in the wind and fail without the shell. It is a package deal. But that is why they built the core and the shell at the same time.

 

[Without Rights]

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.

Wrong, my statement is not an universal affirmative. I didn't say that the only logical explaination is controlled demolision like universal affirmation would imply. I simply said it is certainly possible that it was demolition. It is also possible to have a progrssive collapse, but more unlikely in a freefall scenario. Even more unlikely 3 buildings in a single day. I would be interested in another example of a near freefall progressive collapse.