911 Truth Movement

[tigersnake]

It's not logic at all. You don't even know the nature of the conspiracy you're insisting must exist. How can it possibly be logical if you're purely speculating on matters you have absolutely no evidence of?

This is pointless, a 'did-didn't' exercise. It is logic Disco. Very basic logic. I'll say it again, to make the leap from:

[the US government concealed facts surrounding 9/11]

to

[its a conspiracy]

is flawed logic. Or to put it another way, ludicrous.

One of the first things you learn in logic studies is the principle of flawed logic. And example of that is:

[I saw a black cat] therefore [all cats are black]. That is a very simple statement of flawed logic. As is the one regarding 9/11. We might be getting to the nub here. IMO

 

[tigertim]

It's amazing how heated this thread gets. I don't understand why people invest so much of a personal stake in it.

well said ( for a theorist! ;D)

 

[Harry]

It's amazing how heated this thread gets. I don't understand why people invest so much of a personal stake in it.

agree. no disrespect to the victims, but the whole issue and event is something you'd see in a hollywood movie. Will be interesting keeping track of the events and outcomes in years to come, as the movement is growing and something has to give.

 

[Azza]

well said ( for a theorist! ;D)

I forget - is a theorist a crackpot or sheeple?

 

[Harry]

like it - sheeple v crackpots

 

[Disco08]

p!ss off with your 'apologist' *smile*. An apologist is someone who has a personal interest in defending a government or organisation. I don't, neither does Noam C, the opposite in his case.

The use of the term 'apologist' is a very unsubtle marginalising technique that does not wash here. I have no interest whatsoever in either view being discussed here. Show me some evidence and motive and I'll look at it.

You've been shown both and dismissed them routinely:

A multitude of specific warnings that al Qaeda terrorists were inside the US and that they were planning on flying hijacked planes into buildings such as the Pentagon and WTC. All completely ignored by the US administration.

Actions taken by the US administration to actually make it easer for such an attack to succeed.

Reactions on 9/11 which were completely anomalous that helped allow the attacks to succeed.

The complete and utter removal, suppression and destruction of vast sources of evidence.

The complete abandonment of standard procedure.

The resistance to investigate the murder of 3000 people.

The rigging of the inquiry that occurred due to immense public pressure.

The failure of the US administration to cooperate with the inquiry.

The absolute inadequacy of the OR.

The historical precedent for US administrations to contemplate faked attacks on its own citizens.

The historical precedent for the US to manipulate/create events as a platform for war.

The historical precedent for the US to use preemptive conflicts.

The documented massive gains to powerful individuals when the US is at war.

The documented anomalous trading on AA and UAL prior to 9/11.


None of this is proof of anything. But it is certainly demonstrated motive and evidence towards conspiracy that demands proper investiation.

It's amazing how heated this thread gets. I don't understand why people invest so much of a personal stake in it.

It's exactly the same as when you discuss the logic of omnipotence (for example) with Christians in my experience.

This is pointless, a 'did-didn't' exercise. It is logic Disco. Very basic logic. I'll say it again, to make the leap from:

[the US government concealed facts surrounding 9/11]

to

[its a conspiracy]

is flawed logic. Or to put it another way, ludicrous.

One of the first things you learn in logic studies is the principle of flawed logic. And example of that is:

[I saw a black cat] therefore [all cats are black]. That is a very simple statement of flawed logic. As is the one regarding 9/11. We might be getting to the nub here. IMO

You're the only one insisting on conspiracy. Most truthers only want a proper investigation. Certainly thats the only call from the victims and that's the call I support.

 

[tigersnake]

I give up, again, until I come back.

One thing, again, your use of extreme language and overstatement exposes your pre-concieved views. "complete", all evidence was destroyed, standard procedure was never followed at any time by anyone. 'absolute inadequacy', not one word of the report has any truth or credibility.

 

[Disco08]

like it - sheeple v crackpots

:hihi

 

[Disco08]

I give up, again, until I come back.

When you do can we pick up from here rather than engaging in the same old foreplay?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Wow. That's science to you? Ignore the evidence completely in favour of an appeal to Noam Chomksy?

I don't have a hypothesis. I don't cherry pick evidence at all, I try to look at the sum of the facts objectively when forming an overall opinion. I research what I see as the major points as best I can including reading as much as I can from the OR and apologist sites. Noam Chomsky wasn't there. He didn't testify, he gave an opinion. Are there any other hollow accusations you'd like to make mate?

If you need answers about engineering you go to an engineer. The more respected and experienced the better. Better still a group of respected and experienced engineers. You don't go to an intellectual philosopher no matter how good they are, it's just not scientific. You certainly don't ever abandon the scietific method if you're claiming to be scientific.

But you didn't research the flight recorders and you didn't research Florida under Mashall Law. Otherwise you wouldn't have quoted them. You have failed the scientific approach you seem to think you are the only one adequate with knowledge of. The scientific approach is to use trusted sources, what are your trusted sources? In what way have verified that they are reliable?

 

[Disco08]

I give up, again, until I come back.

One thing, again, your use of extreme language and overstatement exposes your pre-concieved views. "complete", all evidence was destroyed, standard procedure was never followed at any time by anyone. 'absolute inadequacy', not one word of the report has any truth or credibility.

Those words are perfectly reasonable in those contexts.

"Complete" means not just some of the WTC rubble was destroyed. All of it was. Same for ATC intervews. Same for the airline remains. Every crime scene and crash site was processed outside usual protocol. That's not to say every piece of evidence in existence was destroyed because that is obviously completely illogical. ;D

"Absolute inadequacy" means not one area of the inquiry was as thorough as it should have been. Had say one or two areas been inadequate that's what I would have said. Again that's not to say the entire report was false.

 

[Disco08]

But you didn't research the flight recorders and you didn't research Florida under Mashall Law. Otherwise you wouldn't have quoted them. You have failed the scientific approach you seem to think you are the only one adequate with knowledge of. The scientific approach is to use trusted sources, what are your trusted sources? In what way have verified that they are reliable?

I'm not doing any scientific research mate. However I do trust the experts in the AE doco. Their experience and qualifications make them trustable IMO. Same for the experts I referenced regarding AA77's mean feats of flying. Do you Google the name of every expert whose analysis you present?

Yeah I jumped the gun with the FDR's. Last time I looked they were all still unaccounted for. Bad assumption on my behalf and a clear failure to adhere to the scientific method up to the point where I acknowledged my mistake.

The martial law statement I stand by. If you look I said at the time I had read debunking efforts and IMO the effect was the same. Had Bush been arrested he wouldn't have faced the usual legal process but would rather have been processed by the FNG.

I expect everyone here to have adequate knowledge of the scientific method. It's pretty simple and I posted a diagram of it not long ago.

 

[tigertim]

I forget - is a theorist a crackpot or sheeple?

I forget too...what were we discussing again? :spin

 

[AngryAnt]

The fallacy of that argument occurs with your selection of the plane with no windows as an example. Replace that with "WTC7's apparent controlled demolition" or "the removal and destruction of multiple forms of vital evidence" and disregarding the evidence, eyewitness or otherwise, is far more problematic.

My selection of that as an example is not a fallacy - it was chosen very deliberately. It's one conspiracy theory that is out there and gained a lot of traction. It's been debunked - but many will still look at the photos and say "I believe that the plane was a modified USAF plane". Even eye witnesses who saw the plane at a distance may believe that,because (a) they were too far away, and (b) other evidence seems to support the theory, (unless we look at the counter-evidence).

There is no meaningful evidence that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. It all comes down to two things - the "pull it" comment and the BBC wrongful report that it had already collapsed. From such tiny anomalies huge conspiracies grow. And the reason we have no evidence, according to the conspiracy theorists, is that evidence was stolen and hidden, and false evidence planted. All evidence of further conspiracy. And the circularity of argument continues.

So again all your argument boils down to is an appeal to incredulity that exonnerates a departure from the scientific method. Not only that but you're left with the burden of proving not only the conspiracy you're insisting must be implied but also that it was demonstratably impossible. Not an easy job.

I don't really know what you are trying to say here but what you are saying has nothing to do with "the scientific method" or its application. It's interesting though that you believe the burden of proof is on those who don't agree with the incredibly convoluted conspiracy theories.

 

[dukeos]

If he'd flown a straight line into the Penatagon without the Top Gun manouvres I doubt there'd be any conjecture. However when you get a group of people all experienced in the field saying what apparently occured is next to impossible I think that's worth taking note of.

Sorry if its been addressed. Who do you think flew the plane? Whoever it was was is surely dead. Are you suggesting a a US pilot?

 

[jb03]

And yet Jeffrey Scott Shapiro from Fox News states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”

“A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy,” writes Shapiro.

You cannot organise a controlled demolition on a whim. It is not just feasible. Even moreso when you are talking about a building that has already been structurally compromised.

 

[Harry]

You cannot organise a controlled demolition on a whim. It is not just feasible. Even moreso when you are talking about a building that has already been structurally compromised.

get back on the fence ;D

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I'm not doing any scientific research mate.

I research what I see as the major points

You can see where I might get confused ???

The martial law statement I stand by. If you look I said at the time I had read debunking efforts and IMO the effect was the same. Had Bush been arrested he wouldn't have faced the usual legal process but would rather have been processed by the FNG.

I expect everyone here to have adequate knowledge of the scientific method. It's pretty simple and I posted a diagram of it not long ago.

Based on what exactly? Certainly not a scientifically rigorous test of the facts. Florida was not under martial law, plain and simple, the changes to the authority to call up and train the National Guard has no effect on jurisprudence by my reading of the Executive Order 01-261 and 01-262, if you have evidence otherwise to make your inference valid I'd be interested to see it. This is just more sensational and unsupported guff from the conspiracy web. And every time you use this type of confected story to support your claims you lose credibility IMO. Martial law implies that the State of Florida had relinquished complete civilian authority to the military. The Governor is no longer the highest authority. There is no grey area here, martial law has only one meaning.

 

[jb03]

get back on the fence ;D

;D No fence for me this time H.

About time you 'fessed up too - you started this thread because you were bored didn't you.

 

[Baloo]

You cannot organise a controlled demolition on a whim. It is not just feasible. Even moreso when you are talking about a building that has already been structurally compromised.

So you agree that the explosives were planted in advance and set off when Larry gave the ok ?