911 Truth Movement

[Disco08]

Plenty of 'scientists' have signed the Dissent from Darwinism. Does that make the theory of evolution any more plausible? Um, I think you'd agree not. It all depends on the weight of authority and the arguments supporting them.

Agreed. Have you looked into any of the AE911 experts to see how expert they actually are?

There's about 400 signatories there from all manner of scientific disciplines. AE911 have nearly 2000 architects engineers and demolition experts.

Really? Most of the issues with TB have to do with antiquity and questions over known issues with its modification. The OR may be flawed, but its account would seem to be plausible to most.

Flawed in what way?

This is where a scientific background is helpful. You DO need a conclusion. Just nit picking is not enough. You need to provide an alternate theory and support it. You can also publish a response or a letter to the editor about flawed methodologies, as experts would know, but has any of the done this is an appropriate forum? No? Why not. Again it is a huge red flag that you continue to ignore.

It could be a red flag if there weren't so many seemingly highly expert people saying the same thing.

How do you know no expert has objected about NIST's methods? Where would they do that? How could we look it up?

So in this instance NIST can conclude that WTC7 collapsed through progressive failure but that doesn't explain observed free fall collapse speeds. Objectors however can't object to this without forming their own conclusions even though they would have access to far less data and evidence?

No. You allude to conspiracy in almost every one of your posts, which is what illicits the response. When questioned your fall back to the standard line above - "it just needs a proper investigation" - as if that would even be possible.

All I do is discuss the facts but I've conceded many times that most of it is pure conjecture. It's up to the individual to accept that or not.

What's stopping a proper investigation?

I was talking in general terms. Sorry if that wasn't clear. You DO jump from point to point looking for patterns that might spell conspiracy - in many different forms.

I don't often introduce a new point and never do it to avoid an existing discussion. What's a 9/11 thread such as this for if not to examine areas of interest?

I would love to see that claim substantiated.

Can you find a group of 2000 architects and engineers voicing support for NIST?

Sure, I'll listen to their concerns (I have on this very thread!), but the type of response I hear are those that should be put to the test of peer review, with people who can actually refute them, if they can be. They haven't, which tells me something. Do you see my point?

Sure. Unless you're talking about a video or two that've been linked to on here there really hasn't been much on this thread of any technical merit.

How many experts would you need to see united before you'd seriously consider their claims could be legitimate?

 

[Disco08]

Don't be obtuse. Like many publicly owned institutions it was not profitable for many years of its existence. Then it was, then it got bombed. Then it wasn't profitable again til 1997/98 - it was largely empty for the four years in between. Then it recovered, due to the economy and demand for prime office real estate in New York. So you say "It didn't make money for ages and at one time the PA wanted to demolish it, but then it got all successful due to the economy". Well duh. Point is, it was profitable, and had been for several years. And likely would have been since 1993 if the first terrorist attack occurred.

You know Disco, arguing this sort of minutiae is kind of fun, but whenever we look closely at one of your "suspicious facts/circumstances/coincidences", they just don't hold up.

What all of them? LOL. :hihi

Where are you getting the fact it was profitable from? As I see it it was subsidised and thought of as a failure (the PA wanting to demolish it) even during periods of good tenancy. This is even more damning. What's at all appealing about a site that's been close to full tenancy but hasn't been profitable?

 

[tigersnake]

“Memory is a crazy woman that hoards colored rags and throws away food.”
― Austin O'Malley

Nice. Another of his very applicable here: 'It is harder to crush a half-truth than it is a full lie'.

 

[AngryAnt]

What all of them? LOL. :hihi

Yeah, all of them!

At least, all the ones I've been bothered to look at in this thread. By all means show me one that is unmistakably factual, that no-one disputes, that is not just circumstantial or strange coincidence or "suspicious".

 

[Disco08]

What rubbish. You're gloating now and you haven't made any point about Larry that lessens the curiosity surrounding his acquisition. All over a discussion point I've admitted more than once is irrelevant conjecture at this point.

How'd you go finding evidence for the twin towers' profitability you asserted just before?

How about my constant assertion that both co-chairs assert that their inquiry was set up to fail. That's factual and non circumstantial. It's also a compelling reason to support a proper inquiry.

 

[Baloo]

It's also a compelling reason to support a proper inquiry.

Who is blindly arguing against a proper inquiry. I doubt anyone on this thread would be up in arms if they attempted another one.

What the "trusters" (is that what you're using now?) are debating you over is the conspiracy (conspiracies) you imply in every post.

You're not a wounded buffalo with lions clawing at your back. It's more like a laughing clown stall at a carnival with people lining up to pop truth balls into their mouths.

 

[AngryAnt]

What rubbish. You're gloating now and you haven't made any point about Larry that lessens the curiosity surrounding his acquisition. All over a discussion point I've admitted more than once is irrelevant conjecture at this point.

There you go again with "curiousity" aspect. Of course, you are just "curious" and would never seek to claim that Larry was involved in any sort of conspiracy right?

And yet it's so easy to have you ranting about Bush Jr. giving Larry the tip just in time for the insurance policy to be popped in the mail, a crack demo team to be assembled and then killed, and as someone so hilariously put it, had Larry in his tracksuit wearing binoculars looking out the windows nervously in case those wacky Saudi fellows got the planned date wrong.

The sad truth is Disco that you want to believe all the guff - you need to believe it. You pant and salivate over it. You can't help yourself. You try to keep it under your hat but a reference to the dumb insurance fraud theory and you are all over it like a cheap suit.

 

[Soda]

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.

I imagine there are not too many around with the required $$ to purchase such a property, having a limited number of bidders would be expected.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Sure. Unless you're talking about a video or two that've been linked to on here there really hasn't been much on this thread of any technical merit.

How many experts would you need to see united before you'd seriously consider their claims could be legitimate?

What you seemingly fail to understand is that there is a process for getting one's facts accepted in the world of science and engineering and it is through peer-reviewed publication. Your so-called experts know that. There has been plenty of discussion on this thread that is relevant to this, mainly surrounding the collapse of the towers, WTC7 and the impact site at the Pentagon. Although imperfect, Google Scholar is a pretty simple way to limit your research to (mainly) peer-reviewed sources.

 

[Disco08]

They're not "my so called experts". They're just "experts". Have you had a decent look at ae911's site or any of their videos?

http://www.ae911truth.net/downloads/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

You're familiar with the scientific method. Maybe you can look at this?

I understand the peer review system mate. My brother his wife and my mum have all had articles published. What I'm struggling with is the assertion that you need a conclusion to object to even a blatant error in a government report that wasn't available for peer review.

I imagine there are not too many around with the required $$ to purchase such a property, having a limited number of bidders would be expected.

Maybe Soda. Depends on profitability and potential.

There you go again with "curiousity" aspect. Of course, you are just "curious" and would never seek to claim that Larry was involved in any sort of conspiracy right?

And yet it's so easy to have you ranting about Bush Jr. giving Larry the tip just in time for the insurance policy to be popped in the mail, a crack demo team to be assembled and then killed, and as someone so hilariously put it, had Larry in his tracksuit wearing binoculars looking out the windows nervously in case those wacky Saudi fellows got the planned date wrong.

The sad truth is Disco that you want to believe all the guff - you need to believe it. You pant and salivate over it. You can't help yourself. You try to keep it under your hat but a reference to the dumb insurance fraud theory and you are all over it like a cheap suit.

Wow ant. Telling me what I believe now. You're wrong though and I can't help with your inability to separate assertion and speculation. Nor can I help with your inability to discuss things in a civilised manner. If anyone's ranting here it's you mate. I mean honestly - read your post.

I'll take it you don't want to discuss the co-chiefs and you had no luck finding anything to support the assertion that the towers were profitable.

My last word on Larry. As I've said all along I think he's fishy but nothing more until the WTC7 implosion theory can be properly tested. Not only because of what we've been discussing but he's also lied about crucial events and reacted badly when asked for clarification. If a proper investigation concludes WTC7's collapse wasn't at least partly due to explosives though it means nothing.

Who is blindly arguing against a proper inquiry. I doubt anyone on this thread would be up in arms if they attempted another one.

What the "trusters" (is that what you're using now?) are debating you over is the conspiracy (conspiracies) you imply in every post.

You're not a wounded buffalo with lions clawing at your back. It's more like a laughing clown stall at a carnival with people lining up to pop truth balls into their mouths.

Yeah I'm going with trusters now. What do you think? I saw it on another site used by someone debating against the truthers.

I've spelt out my beliefs to you many times now. If you can't accept that it's your problem but I'm only speculating on the facts. If they imply conspiracy blame them, not me. If this upsets you (as it seems to) you should ignore this thread as you said you were going to about 90 pages ago.

Good to hear you don't oppose a proper inquiry. Based solely on the 9/11 commissions failings, would you ever actually consider supporting one?

 

[AngryAnt]

Wow ant. Telling me what I believe now. You're wrong though and I can't help with your inability to separate assertion and speculation. Nor can I help with your inability to discuss things in a civilised manner. If anyone's ranting here it's you mate. I mean honestly - read your post.

I said you want to believe, not that you do... Sorry Disco but a few posts back you were accusing me of pomposity and not behaving as a "civilised" person, so don't go playing the holier than thou card now dude.

 

[Baloo]

Again, who is dead set against another inquiry like you keep asserting ?

Your belief is that the US Government knew about that attacks in advance. Knew their timing. Knew how they were going to happen. They then changed laws to make it easier for the terrorists to do what they were planning, told Larry so he could over insure his buildings and possibly put a different, highly skilled pilot into the Pentagon plane to ensure it hit on target.

Or have you backed away from that belief now ?

 

[evo]

I don't think I've ever been accused of such a thing. ;D

It's not much to hang your hat on. Pretty much everyone is more polite than me. ;D

 

[evo]

Despite the very real possibility that a 120 metre catapult could have been stealthily assembled at a secret launching pad in Staten island by foreign students enrolled in roman military history courses with no 2nd term electives chosen, don’t fall for the big ball theory like I did.

Who doesn't love the sight of a well made trebuchet!?!

 

[Disco08]

Again, who is dead set against another inquiry like you keep asserting ?

Your belief is that the US Government knew about that attacks in advance. Knew their timing. Knew how they were going to happen. They then changed laws to make it easier for the terrorists to do what they were planning, told Larry so he could over insure his buildings and possibly put a different, highly skilled pilot into the Pentagon plane to ensure it hit on target.

Or have you backed away from that belief now ?

I believe some of the Bush government knew the attacks were coming and acted in ways to ensure they succeeded. I also believe they went to great lengths to cover this up. It's only speculation where I've said they could have tipped Larry off and Larry may then have decided to lease and demolish the buildings to guarantee a big payday. No idea about the pilot of AA77 but I trust the experts who say a novice pilot would have almost no chance of flying those manouvres.

Some have you have argued against a proper inquiry. When was the last time I asserted anyone was dead against one?

What about trusters Baloo? Happy with that?

Would you ever consider supporting a proper inquiry based on the failings of the 9/11 commission?

I said you want to believe, not that you do... Sorry Disco but a few posts back you were accusing me of pomposity and not behaving as a "civilised" person, so don't go playing the holier than thou card now dude.

Pffft.

There you go again with "curiousity" aspect. Of course, you are just "curious" and would never seek to claim that Larry was involved in any sort of conspiracy right?

And yet it's so easy to have you ranting about Bush Jr. giving Larry the tip just in time for the insurance policy to be popped in the mail, a crack demo team to be assembled and then killed, and as someone so hilariously put it, had Larry in his tracksuit wearing binoculars looking out the windows nervously in case those wacky Saudi fellows got the planned date wrong.

The sad truth is Disco that you want to believe all the guff - you need to believe it. You pant and salivate over it. You can't help yourself. You try to keep it under your hat but a reference to the dumb insurance fraud theory and you are all over it like a cheap suit.

If that's not a pompous rant telling me how I think I don't know what is. You sound like Colonel Jessop FFS. :hihi

 

[evo]

Evo's "meh" was also not very apt given the towers needed $200M of renovation much of it because of the asbestos contained within.

Hey! I'm willing to suffer almost any indignity in an internetz debate, but I'm buggered if I'm going to stand here silently while one of my "Meh"s is being bought into question!

 

[evo]

$200M represents about 6% of the value of the 99 year lease and more than a year's revenue. If that's meh to you lets just agree to disagree.

so what? If it is known to contain asbestos then the theoreticasl market price is already discounted by $200m anyway. It is a moot point.

Meh!!!!

 

[AngryAnt]

If that's not a pompous rant telling me how I think I don't know what is. You sound like Colonel Jessop FFS. :hihi

No, that's poetic licence Disco ;-)

After all, colourful and incredible flights of fancy are what this thread is mostly composed of.

 

[evo]

The lions and buffalos metaphor is a bit dramatic

I'm thinking it's more a situation of Christian vs the Lions. :hihi

 

[evo]

Nice. Another of his very applicable here: 'It is harder to crush a half-truth than it is a full lie'.

'Reports of my death have been great exagerated - Mark Twain