IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags wtc collapse , wtc , 911 conspiracy theory , wtc1 , wtc2

Reply
Old 22nd December 2005, 08:19 PM   #161
Flange Desire
Muse
 
Flange Desire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 572
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
Hi love, and everyone who has since joined the debate. Isn't it interesting how cognitive dissonance can cause peoples sphincters to tighten?
...LOTS OF STUFF SNIPPED...
Tight as a fish's.

Just show your evidence, and many posters here will be more than happy to show you where you are mistaken.
It is a free educational service (provided thanks to the JREF - praise their rsouls).
Don't worry too much about the high emotions - that is just the normal frustration that any educator will feel occasionally when confronted with outstanding stupidity.
Try staying focussed on your claims - it may even help you if you just present one claim at a time - that way each claim can be shot to pieces individually.
Flange Desire is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2005, 08:24 PM   #162
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by love View Post
I think the concrete was mixed with explosives when the towers were built.
And I think you need to adjust the dosage.

In 1993, a truck bomb in the WTC garage blew a hole through four stories of that same concrete. You'd think if it was mixed with explosives, SOMEONE MIGHT HAVE NOTICED.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2005, 08:47 PM   #163
Peter S.
Magician
 
Peter S.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 861
Wow, 4 pages and no one has mentioned the paranormal object that flew through the hole in the building!
__________________
Wil In Space
Wil in the Haunted forest
Please vote for Wil In Space HERE
Peter S. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2005, 09:06 PM   #164
gtc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,110
Originally Posted by Peter S. View Post
Wow, 4 pages and no one has mentioned the paranormal object that flew through the hole in the building!
What have angels got to do with this thread?
gtc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2005, 10:49 PM   #165
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
It was a paranormal hat. I saw the video myself.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2005, 10:53 PM   #166
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by Psiload View Post
It was a B-25 Mitchell bomber which struck The Empire State Building. The max fuel load of the B-25 was 1241 gallons, and the crash DID produce a massive fire.

The planes which struck the World Trade Towers were Boeing 727s. The max fuel load of the 727 is 6707 gallons.
Not 727s - they were 767s, which can carry 24000 gallons of fuel, and when full weigh close to 400,000 pounds.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2005, 11:14 PM   #167
love
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by Peter S. View Post
Wow, 4 pages and no one has mentioned the paranormal object that flew through the hole in the building!
Oh you are talking about one of the hijackers passports that was found totally intact, lying in the street.
love is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2005, 11:23 PM   #168
Year Zero
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by love View Post
Oh you are talking about one of the hijackers passports that was found totally intact, lying in the street.

Oh wow, another claim that we have already delt with several times on this SAME THREAD!! Yes, one of the hijacker's passports was found somewhere in the rubble. Also found from the flights were photographs and other personal affects belonging to other passengers. Go to 911Myths.com and read about that very claim.

Far more fragile things have actually survived the Colombia disaster as well, including a patch from a uniform, and the LIVE WORMS that were part of an experiment on board.

So yes, it is possible for a passport to survive that crash. Since they found one, we KNOW it is possible now.


I notice the CTs like rehashing old arguments, and as they are shot down they move to another one without admitting their lack of evidence.
__________________
Year Zero Banned from Sean Hannity's forum in less than 24 hours!
Year Zero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2005, 11:29 PM   #169
love
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by Year Zero View Post
So yes, it is possible for a passport to survive that crash. Since they found one, we KNOW it is possible now.
It's funny how some people need double blind controlled trials to convince them of something they did not previously know; and others merely have to see it on the news.

Hint: the government does not always tell the truth.

Evidence: the government has admitted lying in the past.
love is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2005, 11:39 PM   #170
Year Zero
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by love View Post
It's funny how some people need double blind controlled trials to convince them of something they did not previously know; and others merely have to see it on the news.

Hint: the government does not always tell the truth.

Evidence: the government has admitted lying in the past.

You are avoiding the point again, probably ready to bring up another issue that was addressed earlier right?

You brought up the passport because you believe this couldn't survive the crash. Anecdotal evidence shows that not only have small objects survived even WORSE crashes(WORMS survived the COLOMBIA disaster), but other objects, more fragile than a passport, also survived.

Now here's a question for YOU: Why would they need a passport to prove that they were on the plane? They have passenger manifests and ticket records that confirm them being on the plane. There are several people who don't appear on the final victim list because not enough of their remains were found; yet they appear on the original manifests.
__________________
Year Zero Banned from Sean Hannity's forum in less than 24 hours!
Year Zero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2005, 11:40 PM   #171
Year Zero
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by love View Post
It's funny how some people need double blind controlled trials to convince them of something they did not previously know; and others merely have to see it on the news.

Hint: the government does not always tell the truth.

Evidence: the government has admitted lying in the past.

Past government lying does not equal evidence that the government used remote-control planes to blow up its own building that it actually rigged with demolitions almost 30 years ago- demolitions that don't explode when a truck bomb is set off in the same building or that don't go off when a plane hits them.

MAGIC explosives!!!
__________________
Year Zero Banned from Sean Hannity's forum in less than 24 hours!
Year Zero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2005, 11:49 PM   #172
love
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by Year Zero View Post
Past government lying does not equal evidence that the government used remote-control planes to blow up its own building that it actually rigged with demolitions almost 30 years ago- demolitions that don't explode when a truck bomb is set off in the same building or that don't go off when a plane hits them.

MAGIC explosives!!!
So why post the non-sequitur?
love is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2005, 11:52 PM   #173
Year Zero
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by love View Post
So why post the non-sequitur?

Where's the non-sequitur? Nothing in that message is anywhere outside of topics that you have brought up and claims that you have made. If you don't like that, then stick to one claim at a time. But I notice most CTs prefer to bombard people with a myriad of claims without answering any questions about them.

I notice you didn't answer my other question as of this writing.
__________________
Year Zero Banned from Sean Hannity's forum in less than 24 hours!
Year Zero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2005, 11:56 PM   #174
love
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by Year Zero View Post
You are avoiding the point again, probably ready to bring up another issue that was addressed earlier right?

You brought up the passport because you believe this couldn't survive the crash. Anecdotal evidence shows that not only have small objects survived even WORSE crashes(WORMS survived the COLOMBIA disaster), but other objects, more fragile than a passport, also survived.
You are right there. I don't believe, the passport flew out of the plane and landed on the street during the explosion. I guess that I am simply a skeptic at heart.

Quote:
Now here's a question for YOU: Why would they need a passport to prove that they were on the plane? They have passenger manifests and ticket records that confirm them being on the plane. There are several people who don't appear on the final victim list because not enough of their remains were found; yet they appear on the original manifests.
And coincidentally there were several news reports of alleged hijackers being found alive. There I go again. It's my natural skepticism. I can't help it.
love is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2005, 11:58 PM   #175
Year Zero
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by love View Post
You are right there. I don't believe, the passport flew out of the plane and landed on the street during the explosion. I guess that I am simply a skeptic at heart.
Who said it landed on the street? How can you be skeptical- they FOUND a passport. This is not sketpicism, it is denial. They found a passport, ergo they found a passport.



Originally Posted by love View Post
And coincidentally there were several news reports of alleged hijackers being found alive. There I go again. It's my natural skepticism. I can't help it.

There you go again, running to another claim. And of course, it's another claim that's wrong: http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html
__________________
Year Zero Banned from Sean Hannity's forum in less than 24 hours!
Year Zero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 12:23 AM   #176
love
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by Year Zero View Post
Who said it landed on the street? How can you be skeptical- they FOUND a passport. This is not sketpicism, it is denial. They found a passport, ergo they found a passport.
No, that means they claim they found the passport in the street. Why should I believe that? Because they are not "woo"?

Quote:
There you go again, running to another claim. And of course, it's another claim that's wrong: http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html
Oh right, so you just believe anything this website tells you? So you believe there were no newspaper stories about hijackers being alive? Or do you simply not agree with my skeptical position.

A website link proves nothing. It's like me pointing you at a Edgar Cayce site and claiming that is proof of the paranormal.

You people are so arbitrary as to what you count as proof.

Why can't we attempt to establish objectively agreed facts, and see where the differences in our assumptions and deductions lie, rather than simply resorting to claim and counter-claim?

"I know XYZ is untrue because this site www.pqr.com debunks it."

If that's reason then I am unreasonable.
love is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 12:34 AM   #177
Year Zero
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by love View Post
No, that means they claim they found the passport in the street. Why should I believe that? Because they are not "woo"?
Why should I believe that the WTC center was built with some kind of explosives for a distant hoax several decades later, a full decade after a massive shift in the geopolitical climate?

Once again, you keep questioning, but don't even present evidence of your hypothesis. That's why it's "woo".



Originally Posted by love View Post
Oh right, so you just believe anything this website tells you? So you believe there were no newspaper stories about hijackers being alive? Or do you simply not agree with my skeptical position.
First of all, stop calling yourself a skeptic. A skeptic is someone who doubts something until sufficient evidence is provided. You clearly believe in a hypothesis involving 30 year old concrete-mixed explosives without any evidence. How can I say "without any evidence"? Because you haven't presented any. Your doubt that a passport was found does not tell us anything about what brought the towers down.

Now to address your claim. Had you read the site, you would have found your questions answered. No, there were no newspaper reports that declared the hijackers had been found alive. There WERE reports that there were several cases of mistaken identity, due to the extremely common nature of Arab names. If you had gone to the site, you would have seen the newspaper reports cited, and the details in each case.

But you wouldn't want to do that would you? Quick, throw out another claim, I think we're almost at the end of the list.
__________________
Year Zero Banned from Sean Hannity's forum in less than 24 hours!
Year Zero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 05:30 AM   #178
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,634
Originally Posted by love View Post
You are right there. I don't believe, the passport flew out of the plane and landed on the street during the explosion. I guess that I am simply a skeptic at heart.
Why do you have a hard time beleiving it?

Read post #29 and #36 in this thread and tell us why a single passport surviving is so hard to beleive?

What you are doing is not 'skepticism'.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 05:35 AM   #179
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,634
Originally Posted by love View Post
And coincidentally there were several news reports of alleged hijackers being found alive. There I go again. It's my natural skepticism. I can't help it.
There were also initial reports of bombs going off at the State Department Building on 9/11.

They too turned out to be false.

But I guess such reports were of little use to conspiracists and their wacky explosive concrete.

You calling yourself skeptical is laughable.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 05:39 AM   #180
Ed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,658
Originally Posted by love View Post
No, that means they claim they found the passport in the street. Why should I believe that? Because they are not "woo"?



Oh right, so you just believe anything this website tells you? So you believe there were no newspaper stories about hijackers being alive? Or do you simply not agree with my skeptical position.

A website link proves nothing. It's like me pointing you at a Edgar Cayce site and claiming that is proof of the paranormal.

You people are so arbitrary as to what you count as proof.

Why can't we attempt to establish objectively agreed facts, and see where the differences in our assumptions and deductions lie, rather than simply resorting to claim and counter-claim?

"I know XYZ is untrue because this site www.pqr.com debunks it."

If that's reason then I am unreasonable.
Why? It is a question that you seem to avoid at all costs.
Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 05:49 AM   #181
Ed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,658
further, who paid for all of this? And the bribes?

Without some framework you would have us believe that it was done as a lark and that holds no water. Abscent some rationale the only way to interpret your alleged inconsistancies is as that: inconsistancies with no dubious overtones.
Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 06:25 AM   #182
thesyntaxera
Muse
 
thesyntaxera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 882
firstly, love and I aren't the same, a simple deductive investigation of our IP address's will reveal this to be true.

second...

I can debunk all of this skepticism on the simple premise that no deductive investigation has been done ever, regarding 911.

If no such investigation was conducted you have no solid ground to stand on to form a argument.

It's as simple as logic, or the lack there of on your part.

This is why it is so easy to meet each one of your points with more of my own skepticism.

You can't explain why no investigation was done, so why even listen to what you have to say? Your just throwing out conjecture in the other direction.


Find a copy of:

Confronting the Evidence: the case to reopen 911

in it wou will find a panel of actual experts, and a litany of anamolies that need investigation for this to be truly deductive.
thesyntaxera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 06:27 AM   #183
Ed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,658
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
firstly, love and I aren't the same, a simple deductive investigation of our IP address's will reveal this to be true.

second...

I can debunk all of this skepticism on the simple premise that no deductive investigation has been done ever, regarding 911.

If no such investigation was conducted you have no solid ground to stand on to form a argument.

It's as simple as logic, or the lack there of on your part.

This is why it is so easy to meet each one of your points with more of my own skepticism.

You can't explain why no investigation was done, so why even listen to what you have to say? Your just throwing out conjecture in the other direction.


Find a copy of:

Confronting the Evidence: the case to reopen 911

in it wou will find a panel of actual experts, and a litany of anamolies that need investigation for this to be truly deductive.
Answer my questions
Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 06:28 AM   #184
thesyntaxera
Muse
 
thesyntaxera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 882
you all seem to think that the only thing a person can be implying is that there is some worldwide global conspiracy...

I am not saying that.

I am saying : be as logical as you claim to be.
thesyntaxera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 06:31 AM   #185
Ed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,658
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
you all seem to think that the only thing a person can be implying is that there is some worldwide global conspiracy...

I am not saying that.

I am saying : be as logical as you claim to be.
Why? Who paid? How was it kept secret?

You are falling into the God of the Gaps fallacy. You can't explain something so you leap to an alternative, unwarrented explination.

If you cannot come up with some rationale, why bother spending time looking for a conspiracy?
Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 06:38 AM   #186
thesyntaxera
Muse
 
thesyntaxera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 882
ed..

I'll give you one...

inconsistencies with no dubious overtones is exactly what I am getting at.

Thats usually the real world. There generally aren't conspiracies of any size. But there are things of great size who to the untrained eye can take on the attributes of a conspiracy.

In this case if I were to make any claims, it would be that the administration was just watching it's back in light of the event and don't want any links between them and any one middle easterner made.

Remember John O'neil? He was the only person who could have tied them together...he died in the WTC on sept 11...

at the least they didn't respond accordingly, just as the last katrina disaster showed, and realize that their entire platform could be called into question, which might lead one to question their motives etc....

600,000 dollars were spent on the 911 investigation
40,000,000 dollars were spent proving that clinton was having sexual relations.

the chances that so many catastrophic errors in the system could have taken place simultaneously by mere coincidence are 54,000,000:1

More time and effort was spent reconstructing twa 800 than on 911.

If you are using logic, something should make sense to you by now.
thesyntaxera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 06:48 AM   #187
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,770
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera
ed..

I'll give you one...

inconsistencies with no dubious overtones is exactly what I am getting at.

Thats usually the real world. There generally aren't conspiracies of any size. But there are things of great size who to the untrained eye can take on the attributes of a conspiracy.

In this case if I were to make any claims, it would be that the administration was just watching it's back in light of the event and don't want any links between them and any one middle easterner made.

Remember John O'neil? He was the only person who could have tied them together...he died in the WTC on sept 11...

at the least they didn't respond accordingly, just as the last katrina disaster showed, and realize that their entire platform could be called into question, which might lead one to question their motives etc....

600,000 dollars were spent on the 911 investigation
40,000,000 dollars were spent proving that clinton was having sexual relations.

the chances that so many catastrophic errors in the system could have taken place simultaneously by mere coincidence are 54,000,000:1

More time and effort was spent reconstructing twa 800 than on 911.

If you are using logic, something should make sense to you by now.
Translation: I can't answer any of your questions, Ed, so I will pretend they don't exist.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 07:06 AM   #188
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,634
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
e600,000 dollars were spent on the 911 investigation
40,000,000 dollars were spent proving that clinton was having sexual relations.
Bullhockey: The NIST testing alone has run some $20+ million.

Quote:
the chances that so many catastrophic errors in the system could have taken place simultaneously by mere coincidence are 54,000,000:1
Who calculated these odds? What was their basis? I would bet there are a lot of false asumptions in there, there usually are.

Quote:
More time and effort was spent reconstructing twa 800 than on 911.
Bullmerde again.

Quote:
If you are using logic, something should make sense to you by now.
I see that to you Logic = Selective Trimming of Evidence.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 07:06 AM   #189
thesyntaxera
Muse
 
thesyntaxera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 882
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
Translation: I can't answer any of your questions, Ed, so I will pretend they don't exist.
yeah thats, right, or it could be that there is no need to.

Every question you ask is solidy covered in all of the many hours of material that have been created to capitalize on the fact that there hasn't been a deductive investigation.

It's kind of amusing and kind sad to watch you skeptics come from one direction, and when that doesn't work, retreat and come from another, and then retreat and come from another....

All you have to do is explain why no deductive investigation was done...

The reason no rationalized excuse is an acceptable answer is because it's a rationalization not fact.

apparently someone did elect to ride on the semantic train that runs on a closed track.
thesyntaxera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 07:09 AM   #190
richardm
Philosopher
 
richardm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,245
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
600,000 dollars were spent on the 911 investigation
40,000,000 dollars were spent proving that clinton was having sexual relations.
Source?

Quote:
the chances that so many catastrophic errors in the system could have taken place simultaneously by mere coincidence are 54,000,000:1
How did you calculate that? Also beware of statistics

Quote:
More time and effort was spent reconstructing twa 800 than on 911.
Assuming that's true, so what?

Quote:
If you are using logic, something should make sense to you by
now.
What has logic to do with the way governments spend money?
__________________
Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.
richardm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 07:10 AM   #191
thesyntaxera
Muse
 
thesyntaxera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 882
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
Bullhockey: The NIST testing alone has run some $20+ million.



Who calculated these odds? What was their basis? I would bet there are a lot of false asumptions in there, there usually are.



Bullmerde again.



I see that to you Logic = Selective Trimming of Evidence.
I'm sure it cost 20 million, thats why there are no results to reveal....if you have something, post a link...if not...drop it.

Who calculated these odds? Does it take a math genius or common sense?


Selective trimming? Isn't that what you skeptics are doing....



see here you go again, i'll try this angle....whoops....didn't work...anymore you would care to share?
thesyntaxera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 07:12 AM   #192
thesyntaxera
Muse
 
thesyntaxera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 882
"I bet there are a lot of false assumptions there, there usually are..."

isn't that what you are using to come to a conclusion?
thesyntaxera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 07:16 AM   #193
richardm
Philosopher
 
richardm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,245
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
see here you go again, i'll try this angle....whoops....didn't work...anymore you would care to share?
Well, if you keep bringing up new angles as your old ones don't work, why are you surprised that people respond to them?

Still, if you want to stick to just one thing at a time, Ed's list of questions is still waiting. Pick one of those.
__________________
Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.
richardm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 07:21 AM   #194
thesyntaxera
Muse
 
thesyntaxera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 882
Originally Posted by richardm View Post
Well, if you keep bringing up new angles as your old ones don't work, why are you surprised that people respond to them?

Still, if you want to stick to just one thing at a time, Ed's list of questions is still waiting. Pick one of those.

what list of questions? I haven't changed my stance at all..but you all seem to be running mad as if your poor rationalizations are some how as good as evidence.

they aren't.

If a skeptic is someone who looks to the evidence, then what do you have to go on? All you have done is rationalize why there is none.
thesyntaxera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 07:24 AM   #195
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,634
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
I'm sure it cost 20 million, thats why there are no results to reveal....if you have something, post a link...if not...drop it.
Oh for Ed's sake: http://wtc.nist.gov/ or http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

Are you freaking blind?

For the budget itself:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f...gation_911.htm

From which I quote:

"NIST redirected $3.4 million in fiscal year 2002 to begin a three-part plan in response to the WTC disaster. The agency received $16 million for the investigation in September from the FY 2002 supplemental appropriation. The FY 2003 appropriation includes an increase of $3 million.

The President's FY 2004 budget request of $4 million focuses on using the results of the World Trade Center investigation to develop cost-effective solutions to strengthen existing and future buildings against attacks and natural disasters."

Quote:
Who calculated these odds? Does it take a math genius or common sense?
It takes stuff that is not garbage going in. What are the basis for the calculations?

Quote:
Selective trimming? Isn't that what you skeptics are doing....

see here you go again, i'll try this angle....whoops....didn't work...anymore you would care to share?
You're not very good at this, are you?
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 07:25 AM   #196
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,770
I'm sorry, Ed. I left out an alternative translation:

It is in fact correct that I [thesyntaxera] am either a sock puppet or troll. Or possibly both. What is not in dispute is that I [thesyntaxera] have yet to add anything of substance and will not add anything of substance in the future..

And now Garrette chooses to follow his own usually-but-not-always-followed rule of not feeding trolls and sock puppets.

buh bye now luv ya
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 07:25 AM   #197
thesyntaxera
Muse
 
thesyntaxera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 882
I say again...

Find a copy of
Confronting the Evidence: The case/call to reopen 911

watch it.

a panel of actual real living experts gives testimony, with logic evidential reasons to back up their conclusions.

There is no need for me to meander about getting lost in your quote jargon, they already covering everything from your angle in the lecture.

Not a single thing you have mentioned so far hasn't been covered in fact.

all these more realistic alternatives aren't really that realistic if you think about it.
thesyntaxera is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 07:25 AM   #198
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,634
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
"I bet there are a lot of false assumptions there, there usually are..."

isn't that what you are using to come to a conclusion?
This is called the voice of experience

Why don't you tell us how the odds were calculated.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 07:26 AM   #199
richardm
Philosopher
 
richardm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,245
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
If a skeptic is someone who looks to the evidence, then what do you have to go on? All you have done is rationalize why there is none.
There is plenty of evidence. It's just that you appear to find it more amusing to simply make stuff up.
__________________
Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.
richardm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2005, 07:27 AM   #200
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,634
Originally Posted by thesyntaxera View Post
I say again...

Find a copy of
Confronting the Evidence: The case/call to reopen 911

watch it.

a panel of actual real living experts gives testimony, with logic evidential reasons to back up their conclusions.

There is no need for me to meander about getting lost in your quote jargon, they already covering everything from your angle in the lecture.

Not a single thing you have mentioned so far hasn't been covered in fact.

all these more realistic alternatives aren't really that realistic if you think about it.
Here's an idea. Why don't you do your own homework.

Bring what you've got instead of claiming something magic invalidates all our arguements.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:20 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.