ISF Logo   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 9/11 conspiracies

Reply
Old 23rd May 2015, 03:04 AM   #41
Nick Terry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,958
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
I read it as a false generalization.
Actually, Jango, William Seger's statement was an aphorism about two frequently juxtaposed terms whose definitions are a matter of considerable equivocation.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry 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 May 2015, 03:41 AM   #42
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
Actually, Jango, William Seger's statement was an aphorism about two frequently juxtaposed terms whose definitions are a matter of considerable equivocation.
No, it was nowhere close to being pithy/concise/comprehensive/complete nor was it a 'general truth' because it is not a universal truth, 100%, 100/100 forever times infinity. It is a false generalization.
Jango 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 May 2015, 04:16 AM   #43
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,418
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Ulcer inducing, I'm sure.
Do you have a peer reviewed and published paper to support that postulation?

I do not have ulcer problems. However it is fact that my hair started to go grey AFTER I was married. It went fully grey after the kids came along AND I've lost a lot of hair since I started posting in WTC Conspiracy forums. AND each of those had never happened before.

Meanwhile I'll call you on this assertion:

Originally Posted by Jango View Post
The way it was phrased is not universally true.
And the points which follow are moot - fortunately for me 'coz it has been a long day following several long days and I'm not at my top form - not up to my normal "take anyone on" mental standards.

Originally Posted by Jango View Post
If he had instead asked a question with the same contextual standard but left it as a Yes/No/Undecided/X response, 'No' would be the logical choice out of the bunch just as 'Yes' was the logical response in mine. Which is why I brought out Open Secret. Also, note the difference between a question (my poll) and a statement (the quote that is being examined).

Otherwise - a nice try.
ozeco41 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 May 2015, 04:32 AM   #44
Nick Terry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,958
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
No, it was nowhere close to being pithy/concise/comprehensive/complete nor was it a 'general truth' because it is not a universal truth, 100%, 100/100 forever times infinity. It is a false generalization.
You cannot have a universal truth about terms that have different meanings when used in different contexts. The word 'theory' has rather different philosophical, scientific and colloquial meanings. Neither philosophers nor scientists have been able to shake the general population from their habitual use of theory to mean hypothesis or even speculation. But philosophers and scientists also use theory to describe beliefs with wildly varying levels of certainty,

Quite minor changes can make a huge difference - for example when someone says 'that's just a theory', they are really implying an unproven claim. But when a creationist says apropos evolution, 'that's just a theory', they expose themselves as ignoramuses, since the theory of evolution is regarded as a well-proven scientific theory.

Fortunately, language has provided us with numerous synonyms, and our abilities to speak and comprehend language have also blessed us with the gifts of spotting things like context, nuance and humour. A sentence that would be logically invalid in a lengthy text on epistemology can be very apt when delivered as a one-liner on an internet forum.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry 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 May 2015, 05:25 AM   #45
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,233
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
You're wrong. It was and remains a false generalization. Why? There is such a thing called an Open Secret. ...
Since an "Open Secret" is something that is widely known, the very content and/or source of that widely dispersed knowledge would constitute a smoking gun, not?

So which 9/11 Conspiracy Theory is, in your opinion, an "open secret" that has no smoking gun, or which 9/11 Conspiracy Theory has a smoking gun but is not an open secret?
Oystein 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 May 2015, 05:33 AM   #46
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
No, you tell us what it is. However, just like when you failed to point us to the "plausible alternate narrative" you ensured us existed you'll avoid actually committing to demonstrable facts.
He is the latest in the series of "just asking questions" troofer.
Animal 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 May 2015, 06:02 AM   #47
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,716
Hang on, was 9/11 a conspiracy because of some old Rush song?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 May 2015, 06:15 AM   #48
Nick Terry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,958
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Hang on, was 9/11 a conspiracy because of some old Rush song?

Dave
Well, now you mention it, the Twin Towers clearly exhibited grace under pressure, and those planes - just moving pictures, weren't they? Shame that NIST forgot to test for echo; indeed, they clearly forgot to use both hemispheres of their brains.

Not sure how the temples of Syrinx fit into all this, though.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry 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 May 2015, 06:22 AM   #49
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
You cannot have a universal truth about terms that have different meanings when used in different contexts. The word 'theory' has rather different philosophical, scientific and colloquial meanings. Neither philosophers nor scientists have been able to shake the general population from their habitual use of theory to mean hypothesis or even speculation. But philosophers and scientists also use theory to describe beliefs with wildly varying levels of certainty,

Quite minor changes can make a huge difference - for example when someone says 'that's just a theory', they are really implying an unproven claim. But when a creationist says apropos evolution, 'that's just a theory', they expose themselves as ignoramuses, since the theory of evolution is regarded as a well-proven scientific theory.

Fortunately, language has provided us with numerous synonyms, and our abilities to speak and comprehend language have also blessed us with the gifts of spotting things like context, nuance and humour. A sentence that would be logically invalid in a lengthy text on epistemology can be very apt when delivered as a one-liner on an internet forum.
I DVR'd a show called History of the World on the History channel the other day. It is on Youtube too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvNV0GdMilA

It's explanation is as time went by 1) chimpanzee looking monkeys learned/started to walk upright which freed up their hands, 2) more evolved upright walking monkeys learned to use silicon rocks as sharp edge & 3) human like people show up.
Jango 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 May 2015, 06:33 AM   #50
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Do you have a peer reviewed and published paper to support that postulation?

I do not have ulcer problems. However it is fact that my hair started to go grey AFTER I was married. It went fully grey after the kids came along AND I've lost a lot of hair since I started posting in WTC Conspiracy forums. AND each of those had never happened before.
No, just sarcasm.

I had gray hair by my early twenties. At 30, I'm more than half-gray, even gray in my goatee.

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Meanwhile I'll call you on this assertion:



And the points which follow are moot - fortunately for me 'coz it has been a long day following several long days and I'm not at my top form - not up to my normal "take anyone on" mental standards.

Otherwise - a nice try.
You call me on it, but you forgot to mention the 'why' part of it. Nice try. Come at me when you're feeling back up to par.
Jango 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 May 2015, 06:35 AM   #51
Nick Terry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,958
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
I DVR'd a show called History of the World on the History channel the other day. It is on Youtube too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvNV0GdMilA

It's explanation is as time went by 1) chimpanzee looking monkeys learned/started to walk upright which freed up their hands, 2) more evolved upright walking monkeys learned to use silicon rocks as sharp edge & 3) human like people show up.
By your apparent reasoning in this non-sequitur reply to my post, a theory is only as scientific and as rigorous as its dumbest proponent.

This may explain some of the problems you've been experiencing on this forum getting anyone to be convinced by your arguments.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry 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 May 2015, 07:04 AM   #52
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,643
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
No, it was nowhere close to being pithy/concise/comprehensive/complete nor was it a 'general truth' because it is not a universal truth, 100%, 100/100 forever times infinity. It is a false generalization.
Cut to the chase: If it's a false generalization, then you should be able to name at least one exception. What conspiracy theory can you think of where there is "a piece of incontrovertible incriminating evidence" but it's still commonly referred to as a "conspiracy theory"?
WilliamSeger 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 May 2015, 07:19 AM   #53
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Is there a reference point for this though? Have other building collapses done similar things, like ejecting tonnage of material laterally?
There have been exactly two high rise fires in similarly constructed buildings. Both collapsed in the same manner, exhibiting nearly identical ejecta profiles.

No other buildings have been constructed in the manner of the WTC towers, so no comparable fires have ever occurred.

Now. Others have done the math elsewhere to describe the amount of energy released by the towers collapsing. Has any Truther done math analyzing the lateral ejection to show it incompatible with the kinetic energy release? No. Not once. Not ever. On three different forums I've hung out on "that looks weird" is the absolute, entire analysis of the energy.

Be the first Jango. Dare to boldly go where no Truther has gone before. Seek new knowledge and dare to perform complex calculations. You have before you the parts for a Genuine Bone Fide Smoking Gun - prove the lateral ejection of material during collapse exceeds the energy budget of mere gravity-driven collapse.

Don't forget to show your work.

Last edited by Jrrarglblarg; 23rd May 2015 at 07:30 AM.
Jrrarglblarg 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 May 2015, 08:50 AM   #54
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,812
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
You recently OP'ed a thread with a Poll Question - you wanted the question read literally - I supported you AGAIST those who wanted to insist that the literal question should not be answered. Your question included terms that were loosely defined so I gave lessons in how to reason when terms are loosely defined. And I copped ridicule bordering on personal attack as members practised mental gymnastics to avoid the simple fact that you were right -- and over 100 couldn't read and comprehend basic English.
I don't think your interpretation and denial of others interpretation had a legitimate basis. But that's just my interpretation of what is legitimate.

Pardon me though from further discussion. I have other train wrecks to attend to.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 May 2015, 09:20 AM   #55
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
There have been exactly two high rise fires in similarly constructed buildings. Both collapsed in the same manner, exhibiting nearly identical ejecta profiles.

No other buildings have been constructed in the manner of the WTC towers, so no comparable fires have ever occurred.

Now. Others have done the math elsewhere to describe the amount of energy released by the towers collapsing. Has any Truther done math analyzing the lateral ejection to show it incompatible with the kinetic energy release? No. Not once. Not ever. On three different forums I've hung out on "that looks weird" is the absolute, entire analysis of the energy.

Be the first Jango. Dare to boldly go where no Truther has gone before. Seek new knowledge and dare to perform complex calculations. You have before you the parts for a Genuine Bone Fide Smoking Gun - prove the lateral ejection of material during collapse exceeds the energy budget of mere gravity-driven collapse.

Don't forget to show your work.
Thank you for the advice. However, when I get to the stage of having to basically learn grammar rules for the letters I'm using to represent a whole bunch of different ********...yeah, that's why the world has mathematicians and scientists, people who have technical knowledge. I am relying on Oz for that technical information. I have admitted to Oz that I am at a disadvantage given the difference between our knowledge foundation in math and science. So humbly, I regretfully have to decline the attempting to undertake your challenge. For starters, I wouldn't know where to begin or how to formulate the equation properly. I would have to learn that and then find out all of the equations involved in the Towers, which I don't know is even possible. I do not want to let my curiosity get involved in that. No thank you.
Jango 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 May 2015, 09:25 AM   #56
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Your lack of knowledge hasn't stopped you from asserting that the lateral ejection of debris exceeds the energy budget of a gravity driven collapse, though.
Jrrarglblarg 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 May 2015, 10:49 AM   #57
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,059
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Is there a reference point for this though? Have other building collapses done similar things, like ejecting tonnage of material laterally?
Gaining knowledge takes time; 911 truth followers, the true faith based believers spent zero time researching 911, calculating energy, or anything of value to understand 911.

E=mgh, there is more than enough energy in the collapse due to gravity to eject tons of material.

Did you run the numbers? I could post any number, you would not contest it, or check it. Is 137 tons of TNT in energy enough? 137 2,000 pound bombs worth of energy? Is it enough? 576,210,000,000 joules, is this enough?

How much energy do you require to eject material from the WTC? You are asking the wrong questions. How many 110 story buildings collapse due to fires not fought? Why did WTC 7 not eject tons laterally? Could it be the scale? What is E=mgh for WTC 7? Why did WTC 7 look like an implosion? Oh, I know, the interior collapsed first, leaving the facade to fall.

Is the lateral ejections your failed smoking gun?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 May 2015, 11:17 AM   #58
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Your lack of knowledge hasn't stopped you from asserting that the lateral ejection of debris exceeds the energy budget of a gravity driven collapse, though.
Lie. I did not state it as a fact. I asked if there was a reference point, if it had been observed before. You said that there was a reference point, that it had been observed before. I did not dispute it. So what's the problem?
Jango 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 May 2015, 11:19 AM   #59
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Gaining knowledge takes time; 911 truth followers, the true faith based believers spent zero time researching 911, calculating energy, or anything of value to understand 911.

E=mgh, there is more than enough energy in the collapse due to gravity to eject tons of material.

Did you run the numbers? I could post any number, you would not contest it, or check it. Is 137 tons of TNT in energy enough? 137 2,000 pound bombs worth of energy? Is it enough? 576,210,000,000 joules, is this enough?

How much energy do you require to eject material from the WTC? You are asking the wrong questions. How many 110 story buildings collapse due to fires not fought? Why did WTC 7 not eject tons laterally? Could it be the scale? What is E=mgh for WTC 7? Why did WTC 7 look like an implosion? Oh, I know, the interior collapsed first, leaving the facade to fall.

Is the lateral ejections your failed smoking gun?
You quoted me but did not answer the simple questions I asked. I had hoped that you would be civil and explain it to me. Sorry, I gave you too much credit.
Jango 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 May 2015, 11:31 AM   #60
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Like many who spar with Trutherz, beachnut has worn out the ability to be "civil." Actually , he didn't wear it out, Truthers wore it out by seldom if ever reciprocating civil, informed and logical posts with same. The tools of rational conversation become blunted and useless when repeatedly pounded against irrationality.
Jrrarglblarg 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 May 2015, 11:32 AM   #61
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,632
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
You quoted me but did not answer the simple questions I asked. I had hoped that you would be civil and explain it to me. Sorry, I gave you too much credit.
Your question is not a simple one. Could you define the amount of ejected material that would meet your criteria of "tonnage" and "laterally"?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 23rd May 2015 at 11:34 AM.
DGM 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 May 2015, 11:39 AM   #62
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,418
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
I don't think your interpretation and denial of others interpretation had a legitimate basis.
Understood and your right to disagree is respected.

However I posted reasoned explanations and no-one AFAICS ever addressed my reasoning. They bare assertion dismissed mine and some made their own counter claims which did not address what I argued.

I appreciated friendly expressions of concern as to my mental state by some who thought I was in error. I ignored a few snide personal comments by others who were convinced I was wrong. I denied then ignored false claims that people had addressed my arguments when they had not. So overall I decided I had stated my point and chose to walk away from argument which was descending truther style into entrenched denial and personal denigration. Although my skin is "thick enough" - PAs from truthers or trolls don't affect me - no point me forcing people into resorting to PAs

Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
But that's just my interpretation of what is legitimate...
"legitimate" was one of the 3 factors which were undefined. I suggested approaches to argument which validly accomodated the undefined factors. No one has addressed those approaches to argument.

Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Pardon me though from further discussion. I have other train wrecks to attend to.
No problem. It's a dead issue as far as I am concerned. But one of a suite of issues where I remain in agreement with Jango.

......despite there being a number of areas where I strongly disagree with him.
ozeco41 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 May 2015, 11:48 AM   #63
Bubba
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,467
oopsie wrong place
Bubba 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 May 2015, 11:48 AM   #64
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,418
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Like many who spar with Trutherz, beachnut has worn out the ability to be "civil."
That is not a defence - rather it is a "plea in mitigation of sentence". It comes after a pleading or finding of "guilty"

Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Actually , he didn't wear it out, Truthers wore it out by seldom if ever reciprocating civil, informed and logical posts with same.
"He did it first" is a confession - not a defence. I meet it at least once a week driving school buses.
(Q) "Did you hit him?"
(A) "He hit me first."

Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
The tools of rational conversation become blunted and useless when repeatedly pounded against irrationality.
So the user of the tool should consider carefully the risk management of deploying the tool???

"Is the chance of success better than the risk of damaging the tool?"

I don't use my carpentry chisels to open paint cans OR gouge holes in concrete.

ozeco41 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 May 2015, 12:13 PM   #65
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Hence my change of username.
Jrrarglblarg 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 May 2015, 12:23 PM   #66
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
What were the top ten dumbest smoking gun claims by the delusional 911 truth followers, leaders, ... What an idiotic movement.

One classic is the moving smoke smoking gun, where movement of smoke is evidence for 911 truth fantasy CD.
Or the squibs, where air is ejected, the smoking gun for CD. CD claims prove 911 truth persistent followers are gullible. 911 truth followers have no clue the WTC was 95 percent air, and a collapsing building ejects air; why are 911 truth followers so gullible.

There are very smart 911 truthers, but they figure out 911 truth is a failed movement quickly, in weeks; people who can do rational research, and pay attention, then check references recover from 911 truth's fantasy world, quickly.
The rational skeptics of the "official narrative", quickly see 911 truth followers have no clue what the "official narrative" is, and 911 truth followers can't define their fantasy narrative, or present a far out fantasy of CD, and BS. The rational skeptics of the "official narrative", finds the "official narrative" is based on evidence, science, and facts - leaving 911 truth lies in the past.


Then Dr. Steven E. Jones, who made up the fantasy of thermite, had the loaded gun...

When Dr. Steven E. Jones and his failed nuts made up the fake thermite paper, Dr. Steven E. Jones, co-author of the fake paper, writes:
"In short, the paper explodes the official story that ”no evidence” exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.” The red/gray chips are the “loaded gun” of 9-11." 911 truth has the "loaded gun", but no Pulitzer, just fake evidence they made up to fool gullible followers.
You forgot the CIT/PfT " north of Citgo" fantasy. That deserves at least dishonorable mention. You also neglectedf "let's roll" , a supposedly fake and scripted part of flight 93.
jaydeehess 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 May 2015, 12:31 PM   #67
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,570
For me a "conspiracy theory" is a proposition for an alternative explanation of a well known event that already has an established and accepted narrative. Furthermore this alternative explanation must, if it is true, shake up and change the core of how we perceive the world and our understanding of how it works.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis 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 May 2015, 12:43 PM   #68
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
For me a "conspiracy theory" is a proposition for an alternative explanation of a well known event that already has an established and accepted narrative. Furthermore this alternative explanation must, if it is true, shake up and change the core of how we perceive the world and our understanding of how it works.
That's it? Kind of a lousy standard.
Jango 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 May 2015, 01:03 PM   #69
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
That's it? Kind of a lousy standard.
You could help build the castle or just throw rocks. Up to you.
Jrrarglblarg 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 May 2015, 01:12 PM   #70
Jango
Graduate Poster
 
Jango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,688
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
You could help build the castle or just throw rocks. Up to you.
Rocks are a good defense when the castle is under siege.
Jango 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 May 2015, 01:28 PM   #71
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Fine, I'll stop being nice if you're just going to be obtuse.

What standard would you use?
Jrrarglblarg 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 May 2015, 01:37 PM   #72
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Fine, I'll stop being nice if you're just going to be obtuse.

What standard would you use?
Bah! Forget the derail.
So far has anyone other than a debunker posted the "smoking gun" for a 9/11 scenario well outside of the commonly accepted history.
jaydeehess 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 May 2015, 02:03 PM   #73
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,059
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
How much energy do you require to eject material from the WTC?
You quoted me but did not answer the simple questions I asked. I had hoped that you would be civil and explain it to me. Sorry, I gave you too much credit.
How much energy do you require to eject material from the WTC?
simple question

576,210,000,000 joules, is this enough, it was how much energy was released in each tower. ?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 May 2015, 02:15 PM   #74
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,604
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
Rocks are a good defense when the castle is under siege.
Empty word for 1000 posts. The Truther tango.

Post something of substance and people might begin to take you seriously (I have no idea why ozeco41 is making such an effort, given your apparent dedication to evasion).
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 May 2015, 03:00 PM   #75
Nick Terry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,958
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
That's it? Kind of a lousy standard.
No, it's a decent enough description of the class of claims about 9/11, JFK, the moon landing, Sandy Hook, etc that are most frequently labelled 'conspiracy theories'.

Quote:
For me a "conspiracy theory" is a proposition for an alternative explanation of a well known event that already has an established and accepted narrative. Furthermore this alternative explanation must, if it is true, shake up and change the core of how we perceive the world and our understanding of how it works.
It's far from perfect, but one thing it does, is distinguish between speculation immediately after events have happened, and contrarian claims made after enough evidence is in to support a widely accepted consensus about those events.

Travis may be overly optimistic when he implies that conspiracy theories typically offer alternative explanations, however.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry 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 May 2015, 03:07 PM   #76
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
It's done by professionals in public relations who are very much a part of the official bureaucracy. How many of those professionals did it take to get America to go to war in World War I, Vietnam, Iraq? I don't know, but we saw and know that they used enough people to get what they wanted.

Now that the Argumentum ad populum and appeal to emotion are out of the way...what's next?
Yeah, about that; why didn't the bad guys behind 9/11 just plant WMDs in Iraq?
000063 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 May 2015, 03:15 PM   #77
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,418
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Hence my change of username.
I had not noticed the sig....

I've used two usernames:
econ41 on my first forum - which is not hard to decode e = Eric and do the subtraction on "41". You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to decode the rest.

I changed to "ozeco41" when I came here 2009 for reasons which are no longer relevant. The "oz" being phonetic AU - also obvious.

I've recycled both on other forums BUT the Avatar Graphic dates from day 1 - 13 Nov 2007. (14 Nov where I am - kilo TZ.)
ozeco41 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 May 2015, 03:34 PM   #78
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,812
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Empty word for 1000 posts. The Truther tango.

Post something of substance and people might begin to take you seriously (I have no idea why ozeco41 is making such an effort, given your apparent dedication to evasion).
If Lot can find just one honest Truther, God won't destroy them.

Forget it, Lot. That ship has sailed.

That's not to say that good points haven't been made. Collapse progression? Interesting academic problem. Ditto on the paint chemistry. Acceleration determination algorithms? Cool beans. PDB in June? Wolfowitz statements? Enlightening retrospective on how things went wrong. Saudi stuff? Yes, getting their hand caught in the jar again, international politics. Bushes sure were tight with them, politics.

Inside job? I'll acknowledge when I see it. I'll call the blue sky a blue sky no matter who points it out. Only they keep calling the blue sky a rainstorm, no matter how much I give them the benefit of the doubt.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 May 2015, 04:42 PM   #79
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Jango View Post
I DVR'd a show called History of the World on the History channel the other day. It is on Youtube too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvNV0GdMilA

It's explanation is as time went by 1) chimpanzee looking monkeys learned/started to walk upright which freed up their hands, 2) more evolved upright walking monkeys learned to use silicon rocks as sharp edge & 3) human like people show up.
..and some are still as dumb as monkeys.
NoahFence 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 May 2015, 04:46 PM   #80
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
If Lot can find just one honest Truther, God won't destroy them.

Forget it, Lot. That ship has sailed.

That's not to say that good points haven't been made. Collapse progression? Interesting academic problem. Ditto on the paint chemistry. Acceleration determination algorithms? Cool beans. PDB in June? Wolfowitz statements? Enlightening retrospective on how things went wrong. Saudi stuff? Yes, getting their hand caught in the jar again, international politics. Bushes sure were tight with them, politics.

Inside job? I'll acknowledge when I see it. I'll call the blue sky a blue sky no matter who points it out. Only they keep calling the blue sky a rainstorm, no matter how much I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Not only that, but their insistence that the Pentagon and Shanksville never even happened. They can't connect it all, they know it, and so they ignore those two rather huge events. Not only do they call the blue sky a rainstorm, but they pour buckets over their own head and expect you to believe it's raining.
NoahFence 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 09:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.