-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
911 Truth Movement
- Thread starter Harry
- Start date
Panthera tigris FC said:Somewhat ironic statement.
If you go back over my posts in this thread, I think there is fair bit more to them than just pointing out the flaws in your debating style. Do you disagree? You still haven't pointed out to me why the flaws in the OR haven't been debated in a reputable engineering or scientific journal. For someone who has appealed to the lack of scientific merit in the official position, the method of disseminating the troofers position through websites, youtube vids and self-published journals is about as anti-scientific as it gets.
Yeah I realise I'm as bad as anybody mate. Years in the Christianity and RT threads conditioned me. More than anything though I just like a robust discussion on an interesting topic where not everyone agrees with eachother.
The controlled demolition theory seems to me the only credible scientific one in the TM. By credible I mean the only one supported by people who'd have any idea how to write an article for peer review. I'm not sure that you can assume that experts who aren't satisfied with the methods of the NIST reports and who question their findings have the burden of producing detailed theories about why these buildings collapsed. Perhaps they don't have the necessary data or are simply too busy. That shouldn't stop them from pointing out flaws where they seem blatantly obvious though right? The ID analogy might fit here. TToID is the NIST report in that they're both detailed documents making scientific claims. They both also attract many expert objections. How many biologists though went to the trouble of signing a petition denouncing TToID. How many wrote peer reviewed articles that addressed it? Do many peer reviewed articles appear in support of its hypotheses?
The failure to act upon warnings, the destruction and suppression of vital evidence and the obvious rigging of the 9/11 commission aren't really things you'd write a peer reviewed article about are they?
I was wrong though. You've posted on a few angles on this thread. Not so much in the last 2 or 3 weeks (70-80 pages) though. What gave me the impression was that every post you've directed at me I've answered but that's been it. From memory you've rarely replied to a reply and left a lot of my points/questions untouched which seems out of character.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Hasn't really stopped you from discussng the logical side of Christianity. Not much of that discussion was scientifically based.
If you rely on experts to explain things you don't understand you'd have to give some respect to the pretty significant group of them who denounce the NIST report on WTC7 wouldn't you?
antman said:
Why keep reading it then?
Can you explain what you mean by massively complex?
From Larry and Lew's end doesn't it only require themselves, someone from the Bush regime to have a quiet word with them and a covert controlled demolition team? Even the demo team could be people trusted by Larry so it seems simple enough to me. Similarly if PNAC decided to convince Bush ("they tried to kill my Daddy") to use al Qaeda's plan as a platform for war in the middle east they could also have kept the number of conspiritors quite minimal. All the power to influence events was virtually contained within PNAC but bending Bush and Rice to their side would have been all they needed.
So you disregard what they have to say altogether?
We've been over this. Not all architects, engineers and controlled demolition experts will be inclined to weigh into this debate. The number of expert signatories at AE911 doesn't give any indication as to how many of these people have studied the NIST reports at all or how many support it. Where's the AE group supporting NIST? How many expert signatories do they have?
We've been over this. Not all architects, engineers and controlled demolition experts will be inclined to weigh into this debate. The number of expert signatories at AE911 doesn't give any indication as to how many of these people have studied the NIST reports at all or how many support it. Where's the AE group supporting NIST? How many expert signatories do they have?
Disco08 said:
Warnings about terrorists using planes as missiles date back to 1995. Yes, there were more warnings (apparently) closer to the actual attack but how many warnings about imminent terrorist actions are issued that result in nothing? How many gov't officials have cancelled or changed travel plans based on FBI/CIA information?
Larry only acquired the lease to WTC 1 & 2 in July 2001. And he was the underbidder and only when the original buyer did not come up with the $$ did he acquire it. It is unlikley he could have planned this massive insurance fraud until he knew for certain he was going to get the lease. He acquires the lease in Jul 2001 and by Sep 2001 (I think it is 7 weeks after he acquired the lease) he has devised and put in place a plan that involves an expert demo team to wire up the twin towers for detonation as well as WTC 7 - apparently without any one single person noticing. Nor, has anyone involved ever come forward or leaked any information about it. Amazing?
His plan also involves a certain level of risk in that he is relying on the terorrists to succeed in striking both towers with the planes. I find it hard to believe an extremely wealthy real estate guru would put his faith in 19 jihadists pulling off one of the most audacious terrorist attacks ever. If the planes never strike the WTC buildings does he detonate? When? How is it explained?
He would have to have known the exact date of the attack because if he was guessing when it would occur it might look funny him turning up to work every day in his running gear and spending most of the day looking out the windows through his binoculars.
To me, it's way too far a stretch to believe (if it was an inside job) that no one involved has ever come forward and fessed up.
Disco08 said:Yeah I realise I'm as bad as anybody mate. Years in the Christianity and RT threads conditioned me. More than anything though I just like a robust discussion on an interesting topic where not everyone agrees with eachother.
The controlled demolition theory seems to me the only credible scientific one in the TM. By credible I mean the only one supported by people who'd have any idea how to write an article for peer review. I'm not sure that you can assume that experts who aren't satisfied with the methods of the NIST reports and who question their findings have the burden of producing detailed theories about why these buildings collapsed. Perhaps they don't have the necessary data or are simply too busy. That shouldn't stop them from pointing out flaws where they seem blatantly obvious though right? The ID analogy might fit here. TToID is the NIST report in that they're both detailed documents making scientific claims. They both also attract many expert objections. How many biologists though went to the trouble of signing a petition denouncing TToID. How many wrote peer reviewed articles that addressed it? Do many peer reviewed articles appear in support of its hypotheses?
If they don't have the data, then what do they base their conclusions on? If they are too busy, why are they weighing in? Pointing out obvious flaws and presenting an alternate conclusion is certainly valid for peer review, yet we haven't seen it. Why do you think that is?
The ID analogy DOES fit, but in exactly the opposite way you are using it. As evo pointed out earlier, you are the Christian in this version ;D.
Seriously though, ID and the OR are not equivalent, one is the accepted view of an event (albeit with a vocal minority of detractors) - the OR. The other is a anti-scientific, non-mainstream (in the scientific sense) explanation for biological complexity. It is not the accepted view, but the explanation of a fringe group with a barrow to push. It is a position that differs from the accepted, mainstream view. Sound familiar?
How many 'scientists' signed a petition against evolution? There are numerous articles that point out the issues with irreducible complexity and other tenets of ID. Like the troofers argument, the only supporting articles appear in 'journals' set up for the purpose of supporting the theory.
....and you refuse to acknowledge that those who are discussing this with you have agreed that some of these might carry some weight. What they infer from this, however, is different from you. They, see this as an attempt by the government to reduce their appearance of incompetence, not some evidence of conspiracy.
Yeah. I have been to and from this thread. Apologies if I didn't address some of your questions (there have been a few!). The problem is that you have jumped from point to point, with varying degrees of plausibility.
No, science can only touch on the physical claims of religion - and as you well know, there are plenty of those. The rest is more just out of interest. That is quite different from posting a strong position on the plausibility of the structural integrity of NY skyscrapers upon being struck by fully loaded jet airliners. I'll leave that to the experts!
If they put their claims up to peer-review I might pay them some respect. Otherwise it is a real red flag as to the veracity of their claims. More so than even a layman's opinions, because as experts, they know the proper channels for testing a claim.
Soda said:
I'd say that whole scenario fits only if Larry acquired the lease with the knowledge that the attacks were coming already in mind.
The other bidders are a problem to it no doubt but what do we now about them and why they pulled out? Could the have been a smokescreen? Why would any private investor have been at all interested in the twin towers given their problems?
I'd say any tip would have carried a large degree of assurity if indeed certain people within PNAC/Bush's regime were using the attacks to launch the middle east campaign that was clearly one of their main goals. It'd be one thing to be told terrorists were planning to try and fly planes into the twin towers. That might not be a very compelling reason to spend a fortune on two problematic 110 story buildings. However if your good mate the president tells you planes are 100% going to be flown into them on 9/11 that's another thing altogether.
This is all conjecture but I don't see anything you've written there that is convincing towards a required massive conspiracy.
Paul Thompson's 9/11 timeline details many of the warnings even the mainstream media reported. They alone were far more than normal leading in to 9/11 and more detailed. Here's a good look at it too:
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=warnings&startpos=300
Panthera tigris FC said:
Good point. No scientist signed a petition against TToE (that know of) but plenty of experts have signed against NIST's reports. Why do you automatically dismiss them?
Perhaps the OR is better related to TB then. Plenty of people accept them both as the truth despite the fraudulent way they were conceived and the problems contained within them. Sounds about right to me. The number of people who trust them aren't all that disparate either.
My point was that pointing out flaws doesn't necessarily require the presentation of an alternate conclusion. To experts some aspects of the NIST reports might be obvioulsy flawed with only rudimentary data to go on (such as the demonstrated free fall collpase speeds of WTC7) but the same data may not be enough to form a reasonable scientific hypothesis. See my point? Experts are also critical of the methods used by NIST but again this is something that can just be pointed out without a peer reviewed article being required right?
Panthera tigris FC said:
I don't refuse to acknowledge that at all. The difference is I admit these facts might be explained by incompetence but still think they should be properly investigated. Responsibility needs to be taken either way and those that obstructed justice by rigging the first inquiry need to explain why they did it. The trusters however see no chance that these facts are evidence of the possibility of complicity and seem to think a proper investigation into them is a waste of time and money.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Rubbish Pantera. You've responded to posts of mine and I've replied to the points you made in those posts specifically. Nowhere did I reply to a post of yours by jumping from point to point.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Me too. The thing is there are far more experts voicing an opinion against NIST's reports that there are supporting them.
Panthera tigris FC said:
You won't even read their concerns until they're published in a peer reviewed journal?
Disco08 said:
Wasn't Larry already wealthy? he was worth around $500M prior to 9/11. Why would someone take such a massive chance at losing everything simply to double or triple his wealth?
Disco08 said:
The problems may in fact have been overstated by the conspirancy theorists
http://www.911myths.com/html/losing_money_at_the_wtc_.html
Disco08 said:
Lucky the passengers on Flight 93 weren't onboard, they may have stopped the terrorists. So many things had to go right (this almost supports the conspiracy theorists) for the success of the operation.
Disco08 said:
Too many things have to line up perfectly for it to have been Larry & his demo team IMO. And not one person has ever come forward with credible proof it was an inside job.
Disco08 said:
Here you are ploughing on regardless when you were taken to task on a particular point. Evo correctly pointed out ('meh') that just because a building has 'problems', in this case asbestos, it does not mean that there is not money to be made. The fact that Harv was competing with multiple parties to gain control of the building clearly attests to that very rational explanation, yet you suggest a 'smokescreen'?.
Every building has 'problems', and every building can generate a profit, depending on the $ terms. I myself negotiated a significant discount on a house because it had an asbestos roof. The 'problem' turned out to work in my favour.
So evo quickly and sucintly put paid to the 'building wasn't profitable because it had asbestos therefore Harvey was conspiring to blow it up' theory, yet you keep ploughing on as if it is an unassailable fact.
Soda said:
Greed.
Soda said:
So no mention there that the PA had applied to have the buildings demolished or that $200M was equivalent to a full year's revenue. Nor amongst all the self congratulating about occupancy rates (how odd that the towers sat mostly empty for years then suddenly filled up immediately before being destroyed) is there any statement about profitability which you could reasonably expect to follow in that context.
From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace.
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2001-10-04/the-process-of-creating-a-ruin
Soda said:
That's only really valid if you believe UAL93 wasn't shot down as part of the plan. Eyewitness reports of secondary and tertiary debris fields (well debated here already) and the suppression of the CVR recordings tend to support those claims though. As does the removal of all the air plane wreckage from the crash site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJGSorqIZdk
You're right that a multitude of ducks had to line up for these attacks to succeed though. Quite astonishing really.
Soda said:
What credible proof can we reasonably expect. A couple of polaroids of Larry and his demo team having a couple of beers after all the cutter charges were set? An email from Larry to one of them saying "cheers for the great job rigging the towers buddy!"?
Northwoods stayed secret for 50 years despite the heinous nature of it. The Gulf of Tonkin likewise. People can keep secrets. Perhaps if so much of the evidence hadn't been destroyed (in a flagrant departure from time honoured protocols) and suppressed there might be some. Don't you think?
tigersnake said:
Wrong. I've said before more than once that until it's proven that any or all of the towers were demolished this is all pure conjecture. It's your inability to tolerate such conjecture that means you can't see it for what it is.
There are far more points to this than the basic one evo made. One of which is why the PA even thought to put the towers up for tender when it had been for years trying to demolish them. Nice timing no? Multiple bidders isn't really a problem if you have a mate who controls the negotiating process either way. Yes I speculated about that possibly being a smokescreen. Why not? It's a common tactic. The fact you assert that such a suggestion is irrational says it all really.
Evo's "meh" was also not very apt given the towers needed $200M of renovation much of it because of the asbestos contained within.
Disco08 said:
My post must have went straight over your head. $200m, meh. It reminds me of DR Evil in Austin Powers when he hold the world to ransom for '$1 million dollars!'. Evo's 'meh' was spot on apt as you could get. The roof of my house, $20K, meh. We are talking the most expensive real estate on the planet. Its obvious there is money to be made, its called the market. My point stands, there is nothing sinister about this particular point, asbestos in the building, yet you keep ignoring all relevant arguments and ploughing on. Again, it is strange to me.
Disco08 said:
my $25K asbestos roof represented about 5% of the house price. Its a bone-fide meh to me, and it was obviously a meh to the Manhattan real estate market.
Sorry but really I can't see how any meaningful comparison can be made between a suburban house and the WTC.
It was hardly a meh to the NY market either. Obviously you know how many serious bidders a lease on a profitable site that size would usually attract.
It was hardly a meh to the NY market either. Obviously you know how many serious bidders a lease on a profitable site that size would usually attract.
