3 of 3
3
Conspiracy Deniers
Posted: 30 December 2013 02:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Fuzzy Logic - 30 December 2013 02:17 PM

what the evidence indicates is the most likely explanation

is the question. The NIST report into WTC 7 examined no physical evidence from the building at all. What you describe as the “simplest explanation” is in fact merely a expensive computer animation that can’t be independently checked.

That’s it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2013 03:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
jomper - 30 December 2013 12:13 PM

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).

It may have been, but not a silent conspiracy.  I knowvconspiracies exist but none that involve a lot of people and silence for years are possible, IMO.

People conspire all the time but I have not pointed to any that I accept as definite conspiracies.  I will expand on why I don’t accept the the NIST report as any kind of conspiracy.  I had written a piece of several paragraphs on this only to have it disappear from the screen before I could post it.  (And before you mention it, no, I don’t think it was caused by a conspiracy.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2013 03:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
jomper - 30 December 2013 02:41 PM
Fuzzy Logic - 30 December 2013 02:17 PM

what the evidence indicates is the most likely explanation

is the question. The NIST report into WTC 7 examined no physical evidence from the building at all. What you describe as the “simplest explanation” is in fact merely a expensive computer animation that can’t be independently checked.

That’s it.

Based on the physical condition of the building after being hit by debris from a falling tower followed by hours of fire and backed up by the visual and audio evidence from the same video that when taken out of context is used by conspiracy theorists to show how the building was really brought down by explosives.

Once again, it’s most likely the building was already in massive failure when the outer shell began it’s evident freefall. The outer shells of modern buildings mostly don’t provide structural support, that’s done by internal steel beams which can and do fail as the result of extreme and prolonged heat from the kind of fire that was going there and which was preceded by gross physical damage by debris from the falling tower.

Is the problem for you the building fell at all, or didn’t fit some preconceived notion of what it should look like? And if so what is that based on?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2013 06:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Why is this thread turning into a clone of the one on the towers in the science section?  How about keeping the discussion on that limited to the original thread?

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2013 11:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Occam. - 30 December 2013 06:04 PM

Why is this thread turning into a clone of the one on the towers in the science section?  How about keeping the discussion on that limited to the original thread?

Occam

It’s just one of those things, Occam.  All roads lead to a conspiracy theory. A little like all roads leading to a discussion of free will.
tongue wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 December 2013 11:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Occam. - 30 December 2013 06:04 PM

Why is this thread turning into a clone of the one on the towers in the science section?  How about keeping the discussion on that limited to the original thread?

Occam

Occam, I have noted that responses in this thread on the topic of WTC7 should be posted in the thread you refer to at posts 7, 21 and 26.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2013 12:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Fuzzy Logic - 30 December 2013 03:38 PM
jomper - 30 December 2013 02:41 PM
Fuzzy Logic - 30 December 2013 02:17 PM

what the evidence indicates is the most likely explanation

is the question. The NIST report into WTC 7 examined no physical evidence from the building at all. What you describe as the “simplest explanation” is in fact merely a expensive computer animation that can’t be independently checked.

That’s it.

Based on the physical condition of the building after being hit by debris from a falling tower followed by hours of fire and backed up by the visual and audio evidence from the same video that when taken out of context is used by conspiracy theorists to show how the building was really brought down by explosives.

Once again, it’s most likely the building was already in massive failure when the outer shell began it’s evident freefall. The outer shells of modern buildings mostly don’t provide structural support, that’s done by internal steel beams which can and do fail as the result of extreme and prolonged heat from the kind of fire that was going there and which was preceded by gross physical damage by debris from the falling tower.

Is the problem for you the building fell at all, or didn’t fit some preconceived notion of what it should look like? And if so what is that based on?

My problem is that what you say is “most likely” is not based on a sound scientific investigation that involves a meaningful application of the scientific method and without a meaningful investigation claims of evidence or lack of evidence are meaningless.

Again, what you describe as “most likely” is a conclusion drawn from an unverified computer animation produced by an investigation that examined precisely zero physical evidence and ignored critical demands of forensic fire investigation codes (and incidentally said that damage from the towers was not a factor in the collapse, which would apparently have occurred anyway).

I suggest you explain on the other thread where there is any actual evidence to believe that the building behaved in the way it did in response to fire alone. You are saying it fell symmetrically because it had a moment-resisting shell? Very well: explain on the other thread what makes you believe that.

[ Edited: 31 December 2013 02:32 AM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 December 2013 12:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Lois - 30 December 2013 03:02 PM
jomper - 30 December 2013 12:13 PM

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).

It may have been, but not a silent conspiracy.  I knowvconspiracies exist but none that involve a lot of people and silence for years are possible, IMO.

People conspire all the time but I have not pointed to any that I accept as definite conspiracies.  I will expand on why I don’t accept the the NIST report as any kind of conspiracy.  I had written a piece of several paragraphs on this only to have it disappear from the screen before I could post it.  (And before you mention it, no, I don’t think it was caused by a conspiracy.)

I don’t want to discuss the NIST report here as there’s another thread for that. However you are claiming the AQ 9/11 conspiracy was not the result of extensive planning over time and was not “silent”? It certainly caught the US with her defences down. Or are you one if these conspiracy theorists that think US intelligence received but ignored multiple and specific warnings ahead if the attacks?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 January 2014 05:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
jomper - 31 December 2013 12:19 AM

I don’t want to discuss the NIST report here as there’s another thread for that. However you are claiming the AQ 9/11 conspiracy was not the result of extensive planning over time and was not “silent”? It certainly caught the US with her defences down. Or are you one if these conspiracy theorists that think US intelligence received but ignored multiple and specific warnings ahead if the attacks?

That’s not really a conspiracy in the same sense as claiming that the US government itself was responsible for the buildings coming down. Al Qaeda was effectively a hostile foreign power with significant resources, Bin Landen alone had access to 1/4 of a billion dollars and there are reports his family was still supporting him with funds and logistics up until Sept. 2001. It’s also possible the Pakistani ISI and some members of the Saudi government were involved. It’s more like the surprise attack carried out by Japan in 1941.

And there were extensive warnings including a previous attack on the WTC in 1993 and a plan in 1995 to carry out an extensive attack using airliners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot

There was the attack on the USS Cole and the African embassy bombings to indicate the new capabilities of Al Qaeda. There were also a number of different sources warning the US government in the summer of 2001 that an attack was coming. There was also evidence from within the US of Saudi nationals on the terrorist watch list already inside the country but nothing was done until to late.

Whether it was incompetence or something else that prevented effective counter-measures,there was plenty of evidence pointing to what was coming.

[ Edited: 02 January 2014 05:52 PM by Fuzzy Logic ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 January 2014 02:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Fuzzy Logic - 02 January 2014 05:49 PM

That’s not really a conspiracy in the same sense as claiming that the US government itself was responsible for the buildings coming down.

That wouldn’t be my claim, although it is claimed by plenty who are tarred with the “conspiracy theorist” brush—and applied to plenty more.

I don’t claim anything apart from claiming that the NIST WTC7 report is not a credible scientific document and the accompanying multi-million dollar computer animation is bunk.

That comment (38) was mainly directed at Lois, as her hostility to “conspiracy theorists” is such that I’m curious to know what kind of conspiracy she does accept occurred on 9/11.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 January 2014 07:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  814
Joined  2012-04-25

Well crap. I knew I shouldn’t have added a reference to 911 in my OP.  My point was actually a simple one, and an analogy comes to mind: Say there was a family in your neighborhood who you knew for certain has murdered, caused several divorces of your neighbors, stole from the local bank, AND has bribed city administrators for years etc.

Now your library burns down. In your local newspaper you read the “official report” from the police chief that says the arsonist was from another city, that bad urban city where all the bad guys are. And my god, they’re not even Christian! They hate our neighborhood because of our beautiful parks!

Tell me honestly that knowing the history of this family, you’d believe the official story? Is there a chance the family is innocent? Of course. But lets’ say the police chief appointed the head of that family to the task force to determine who did it? Again, don’t tell me you’d think all is ok with the official story.  Again it still certainly is possible that the family is innocent. But times all this by 10. If you STILL maintain that those in your neighborhood still suspected the family were somehow “conspiracy nutjobs” would be the height of dishonesty and naivety. 

And so it is with 911, and many others events in US history. The US government (dem or repub), the family, has proven itself over and over and over to be like the family in my analogy. And to somehow call those who don’t believe the official story nutjobs is to my way of thinking ludicrous.

[ Edited: 04 January 2014 07:37 PM by CuthbertJ ]
Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3