2 of 3
2
Conspiracy Deniers
Posted: 29 December 2013 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
jomper - 29 December 2013 10:37 AM
Lois - 29 December 2013 10:34 AM
jomper - 29 December 2013 08:01 AM
Lois - 29 December 2013 05:24 AM

So far, I have not heard even a rational narrative of how a conspiracy could have taken place

Presumably then you think the conspiracy you believe occurred is founded in an entirely rational narrative.

I have no idea what you are saying here.  I have not suggested a conspiracy.

I see, so a conspiracy you accept occurred is not a conspiracy at all to you?

What conspiracy have I said I accept? If you think I have said this you are wrong. Please quote what you think I have said that would lead you to assume such a thing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 01:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Lois - 28 December 2013 01:40 PM

No proof, not even a scintilla of positive evidence, has been put forward that an actual conspiracy took place.

Is this also your response to the supposedly

Lois - 29 December 2013 05:24 AM

rational narrative of how a conspiracy could have taken place

involving 19 hijackers and OBL?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 01:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
jomper - 29 December 2013 07:22 AM

A transparent appeal to incredulity that does nothing to address the question of how WTC 7 collapsed in the way it did. With respect, that’s pretty pathetic.

This video addresses some of the questions raised about WTC 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PpsCCTMP8w

It most likely wasn’t a straightforward collapse due to the destruction of support beams by explosives or thermite charges as some claim, by the time the building appears to be in free fall for 2.5 seconds most of the internal structure of the building has already failed. What we see at the period highlighted by those claiming that explosives were most likely the cause, is the remaining outer shell of the building collapsing. There most likely was series of failures that caused a cascade effect as can be seen with the penthouse failing first loading the structural members of the rest of building bringing it down.

This is consistent with the structural damage caused by the falling WTC 1 & 2 buildings in combination with fires that burned for hours with no suppression. Modern buildings may look very sturdy, but most of the weight is carried by a limited number of beams that can be weakened by fire and shock damage causing the kind of failure we saw at the WTC.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 02:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Fuzzy Logic - 29 December 2013 01:58 PM
jomper - 29 December 2013 07:22 AM

A transparent appeal to incredulity that does nothing to address the question of how WTC 7 collapsed in the way it did. With respect, that’s pretty pathetic.

This video addresses some of the questions raised about WTC 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PpsCCTMP8w

It most likely wasn’t a straightforward collapse due to the destruction of support beams by explosives or thermite charges as some claim, by the time the building appears to be in free fall for 2.5 seconds most of the internal structure of the building has already failed. What we see at the period highlighted by those claiming that explosives were most likely the cause, is the remaining outer shell of the building collapsing. There most likely was series of failures that caused a cascade effect as can be seen with the penthouse failing first loading the structural members of the rest of building bringing it down.

This is consistent with the structural damage caused by the falling WTC 1 & 2 buildings in combination with fires that burned for hours with no suppression. Modern buildings may look very sturdy, but most of the weight is carried by a limited number of beams that can be weakened by fire and shock damage causing the kind of failure we saw at the WTC.

And how do you know all this?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 03:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
jomper - 29 December 2013 02:31 PM

And how do you know all this?

Did you watch the video, it’s explained rather well there I think.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 03:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Fuzzy Logic - 29 December 2013 03:00 PM
jomper - 29 December 2013 02:31 PM

And how do you know all this?

Did you watch the video, it’s explained rather well there I think.

Yes, I’m quite well aware of it. If you were to scroll through the comments on that video you’d eventually find some from me.

So for clarity: with Myles, you fully accept the NIST WTC 7 report and its methods (including the computer model which is briefly glimpsed in this video) and consider its conclusions to be scientifically sound.

If so, why not post your reasons for this in the “Any scientific evidence for WTC 7 fall theory?” thread.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 03:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
jomper - 29 December 2013 03:08 PM

Yes, I’m quite well aware of it. If you were to scroll through the comments on that video you’d eventually find some from me.

So for clarity: with Myles, you fully accept the NIST WTC 7 report and its methods (including the computer model which is briefly glimpsed in this video) and consider its conclusions to be scientifically sound.

If so, why not post your reasons for this in the “Any scientific evidence for WTC 7 fall theory?” thread.

It’s a question of probability.

While it’s possible a small but elite rogue element within the American power structure did carry out an internal attack, I also think it’s highly improbable. I think it’s much more likely that there was much greater knowledge by those in a position to do something about it that an attack was imminent, but that’s far different from being an active participant. There’s too much evidence for the involvement of radical Jihadists being behind the attack and too little for American government involvement at the level to make something like this work.

I’m not posting in the WTC 7 thread because I think it’s about the unresolved emotions from 9/11, not the facts.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 03:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Fuzzy Logic - 29 December 2013 03:26 PM
jomper - 29 December 2013 03:08 PM

Yes, I’m quite well aware of it. If you were to scroll through the comments on that video you’d eventually find some from me.

So for clarity: with Myles, you fully accept the NIST WTC 7 report and its methods (including the computer model which is briefly glimpsed in this video) and consider its conclusions to be scientifically sound.

If so, why not post your reasons for this in the “Any scientific evidence for WTC 7 fall theory?” thread.

It’s a question of probability.

While it’s possible a small but elite rogue element within the American power structure did carry out an internal attack, I also think it’s highly improbable. I think it’s much more likely that there was much greater knowledge by those in a position to do something about it that an attack was imminent, but that’s far different from being an active participant. There’s too much evidence for the involvement of radical Jihadists being behind the attack and too little for American government involvement at the level to make something like this work.

I’m not posting in the WTC 7 thread because I think it’s about the unresolved emotions from 9/11, not the facts.

WTC 7 didn’t collapse because it had emotional issues.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 03:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
jomper - 29 December 2013 03:33 PM

WTC 7 didn’t collapse because it had emotional issues.

That’s true.

But someones internal state of mind may influence how they interpret the facts.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 December 2013 05:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
Fuzzy Logic - 29 December 2013 03:40 PM
jomper - 29 December 2013 03:33 PM

WTC 7 didn’t collapse because it had emotional issues.

That’s true.

But someones internal state of mind may influence how they interpret the facts.

That is always true, which is why we have the scientific method as our best chance.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2013 08:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16

Again, Fuzzy: if you think there is scientific reason to subscribe to the NIST version of events at WTC 7 via Myles Power, perhaps you could explain this on the relevant thread.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2013 08:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16
jomper - 29 December 2013 01:19 PM
Lois - 28 December 2013 01:40 PM

No proof, not even a scintilla of positive evidence, has been put forward that an actual conspiracy took place.

Is this also your response to the supposedly

Lois - 29 December 2013 05:24 AM

rational narrative of how a conspiracy could have taken place

involving 19 hijackers and OBL?

Lois, I’m still wondering what your response to this question is.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2013 12:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
jomper - 29 December 2013 01:19 PM
Lois - 28 December 2013 01:40 PM

No proof, not even a scintilla of positive evidence, has been put forward that an actual conspiracy took place.

Is this also your response to the supposedly

Lois - 29 December 2013 05:24 AM

rational narrative of how a conspiracy could have taken place

involving 19 hijackers and OBL?

What sort of conspiracy is that?

I never referenced 19 hijackers and OBL as a conspiracy.  Those are your words, not mine.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2013 12:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  428
Joined  2013-02-16

It was a question, Lois. You pour scorn on conspiracies, so my question to you was if you believe in the “rational” narrative of 19 hijackers and OBL—which was of course a conspiracy (if you accept it).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2013 02:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
jomper - 29 December 2013 05:29 PM

That is always true, which is why we have the scientific method as our best chance.

As has already been stated before here, the scientific method doesn’t play favorites, you also need to apply it to your hypothesis which is far more complex than the existing version of events around 9/11.

As I’ve pointed out the collapse of WTC 7 is also much more complex than the 2.5 second freefall that is presented as evidence that the building was brought down in an intentional and secret demolition by explosives.

And I’m not really interested in going any farther in a discussion that will probably never end for some no matter what the evidence indicates is the most likely explanation.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2