| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| What is the most compelling evidence for MIHOP? |
| World Trade Center 1 & 2 Collapses |
|
12% |
[ 2 ] |
| World Trade Center 7 Collapse |
|
50% |
[ 8 ] |
| Flight 93 anomalies |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Pentagon anomalies |
|
12% |
[ 2 ] |
| Other |
|
25% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 16 |
|
| Author |
Message |
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| stateofgrace wrote: | And your reason for this are ?
What exactly as Aids got to do with 911? |
It's an experiment. I wanted to prove that when you 'critics' are forced to look at what the world is really like, you bottle it and pretend it isnt real. Youre a psychological coward. Youre embarrassing.
_________________
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Really?
So you know all about my opinions on Aids now, could you tell me what they are.
Will you answer the question?
What as Aids got to do with 911?
By the way have you ever been to Africa? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | | stateofgrace wrote: | John I have seen this video and I agree with the questions that need to be answered.
I agree totally there are serious unanswered questioned about 911.
So why do you not?
Why do you wish to bury all these genuine questions that the families deserve answers to in favour of bombs, missiles and no planes?
You know and I know this is the most honest movie ever made by the truth movement it is the flagship. No critic will question the motivation behind the likes of the Jersey girls.
But they do not support the more outrageous theories regarding this event.
Therein lays the difference between the genuine truth seeker and the conspirator.
The genuine truther genuinely seeks the truth.
The conspirator buries it all in outrageous theories.
You need to decide which one you are or this movement is going nowhere. Drop the dross, demand the truth, the genuine truth and keep demanding it and you will get support. Genuine support. And you may find the more and more people will sign up.
Your call John.
(Just thought I'd say)
*bowing out again* |
Pathetic. |
Prole: Olive branches: learn to at least shake the end a bit before burning them
SOG: Hello again
Well firstly, both for reasons of time and becuase of the depth of your question, I can only scratch the surface here
As you are probably aware, I don't spend my personal time arguing vociferously for for more unconventional 9/11 theories. My background is coming from the world of philosophy and esoteric spirituality, and over 20 years of exploring such ideas, it has given me an understanding of how to weigh information, no matter how bizzare, as balance of probabilities: and of the importance, as a communicator, of earthing these ideas by connecting them to consensus reality. With 9/11 activism, Im looking for information that has a high balance of probability, and thats what I personally go out and talk to people about (most definately on other internet forums, and in my community)
essentially the debate here in critics corner represents a dynamic between co-incidence theory and conspiracy theory at the "poles" of peoples POV
We ALL agree there are anomalies about 9/11: without exception
From the JREF POV (at the extreme), these anomalies are assigned as co-incidences. Its co-incidence that three steel framed buildings fell on the same day for the first time in history becuase of the effect of fire. Its a co-incidence that there was large amounts of molten metal in the basements of all three... that Norad failed to stop the planes...and so on...
and this is becuase illogical explanations cannot make sense
From the 9/11 Truth POV(at the extreme), these anomalies are assigned as conspiracy. Its conspiracy that three steel framed buildings fell on the same day for the first time in history becuase of the effect of fire. Its a conspiracythat there was large amounts of molten metal in the basements of all three... that Norad failed to stop the planes... and this is becuase the official explanations given do not seem to make sense
There's a lot more in common here than the surface dis-agreement. We are all looking at the same events: but we are filtering them differently through the one peice of apparatus we all are dependent upon to function as human beings at all: our minds
Here's an example of why pure co-incidence theory can only suppress 9/11 truth: it can never stop these questions being asked, no matter how many reports etc critics produce: This image is of sunflowers: but it can also been seen in another way. Once it has been seen another way, it will never be seen as sunflowers again. 9/11 truth is like that: no amount or protestations that "its just sunflowers" is going to remove the perception that theres more going on than meets the surface of the eye (or the minds eye)
So what is the ultimate answer?
For us all to realise that everything cannot be explained as co-incidence, and everything cannot be explained as conspiracy, to unite around the strongest balance of probabilities and, with Unity, to demand our governments account for themselves before we get sucked into WWIII... is one possible answer. i quite like it
To me, Press for Truth represents the most promising common ground between the two poles of perception that has come to light so far, and in my actions discussing it, I do seek to offer a lead by example
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Last edited by John White on Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:39 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stateofgrace wrote: | Really?
So you know all about my opinions on Aids now, could you tell me what they are.
Will you answer the question?
What as Aids got to do with 911?
By the way have you ever been to Africa? |
Irrelevant. Give me feedback and prove me wrong, you coward.
_________________
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thank you John, I appreciate your well worded post and your reasoning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | | stateofgrace wrote: | Really?
So you know all about my opinions on Aids now, could you tell me what they are.
Will you answer the question?
What as Aids got to do with 911?
By the way have you ever been to Africa? |
Irrelevant. Give me feedback and prove me wrong, you coward. |
Your experiment is irrelevant. You are asking opinions on one subject in a silly attempt to generalise.
You are hoping I will not condemn the Aid epidemic and the west’s inaction to it. In this way you will demonise me. Thus it justifies your silly believes.
Now have you ever been to Africa, seen the reality you harp on about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| prole art threat wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | prole art threat wrote: |
Pathetic. |
What specifically do you find pathetic? |
What I find specifically to be pathetic is the fact that State of Grace does not seem to possess a morsel of psychological courage. He has not the balls to leave any feedback on the Aids Babies thread. Ive got a good idea, why dont you do it for him? |
AIDS BABIES?!? WTF? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | prole art threat wrote: | | aggle-rithm wrote: | | prole art threat wrote: |
Pathetic. |
What specifically do you find pathetic? |
What I find specifically to be pathetic is the fact that State of Grace does not seem to possess a morsel of psychological courage. He has not the balls to leave any feedback on the Aids Babies thread. Ive got a good idea, why dont you do it for him? |
AIDS BABIES?!? WTF? |
Don't you get it aggle?
In his twisted world we all agree with the AIDS epidemic because we don't think 911 was an inside job.
It all makes perfect sense if you are a raving loony. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stateofgrace wrote: |
Don't you get it aggle?
In his twisted world we all agree with the AIDS epidemic because we don't think 911 was an inside job.
It all makes perfect sense if you are a raving loony. |
If I have to look at prole's seizure-inducing sig one more time, I'm there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed, time to leave this thread and leave prole to his white
Horse.
Once again thank you John, there really is common ground between us, it’s just finding it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I rarely stray here and I haven't read all 9 pages of the thread so forgive me for posting this in the middle of an on going exchange but the phoney distinction between MIHOP and LIHOP needs addressing.
Just suppose that despite all the evidence challenging the official truth, the Kean Commission is correct in its explanation of the tower collapses, the pentagon and flight 93 (which naturally I don't accept but for sake of argument)...
that leads the 9/11 truth movement to 'fall back' on the non-physical evidence. You know the
The intelligence failures and questions
The air defense failures and questions
The put options questions
The security failures
The investigation failures
The questioned identity and background of the 'hijackers'
The connections between OBL and CIA
The ISI connections
The Saudi connections
The Israeli connections
The PNAC connections
The example of previous US sponsored false flag terrorism and US government duplicity
etc, etc, etc, etc................
This non-physical evidence is often presented in support of a LIHOP scenario. But to my mind that is plain untenable. Let's assume that US complicity is limited only to senior officials knowing of 9/11 and then standing back and not intervening to prevent the attacks.
Can any one explain how this LIHOP scenario is some how less treasonous, less scandalous, less outrageous or if proven, some how less indicative of a high level government/military conspiracy and cover-up than if 'they' had blown up the towers and stuck a missisle into the pentagon?
To my mind the case that 9/11 was an inside job based solely on the non-physical evidence is overwhelming and the implications of 9/11 being an inside job is just as damining and world changing regardless of whether it is proven by physical or non-physical evidence.
There is no LIHOP / MIHOP divide. The distinction is meaningless. The only question is what evidence do you turn to first in making the case for reopening 9/11. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | I rarely stray here and I haven't read all 9 pages of the thread so forgive me for posting this in the middle of an on going exchange but the phoney distinction between MIHOP and LIHOP needs addressing.
Just suppose that despite all the evidence challenging the official truth, the Kean Commission is correct in its explanation of the tower collapses, the pentagon and flight 93 (which naturally I don't accept but for sake of argument)...
that leads the 9/11 truth movement to 'fall back' on the non-physical evidence. You know the
The intelligence failures and questions
The air defense failures and questions
The put options questions
The security failures
The investigation failures
The questioned identity and background of the 'hijackers'
The connections between OBL and CIA
The ISI connections
The Saudi connections
The Israeli connections
The PNAC connections
The example of previous US sponsored false flag terrorism and US government duplicity
etc, etc, etc, etc................
This non-physical evidence is often presented in support of a LIHOP scenario. But to my mind that is plain untenable. Let's assume that US complicity is limited only to senior officials knowing of 9/11 and then standing back and not intervening to prevent the attacks.
Can any one explain how this LIHOP scenario is some how less treasonous, less scandalous, less outrageous or if proven, some how less indicative of a high level government/military conspiracy and cover-up than if 'they' had blown up the towers and stuck a missisle into the pentagon?
To my mind the case that 9/11 was an inside job based solely on the non-physical evidence is overwhelming and the implications of 9/11 being an inside job is just as damining and world changing regardless of whether it is proven by physical or non-physical evidence.
There is no LIHOP / MIHOP divide. The distinction is meaningless. The only question is what evidence do you turn to first in making the case for reopening 9/11. |
You are connecting dots without "physical" (real) evidence. Therefore your connections are tenuous and suspect at the very best. Simply put you cannot prove a mass-murder case without real physical evidence.
You may feel that this "non-physical" evidence is "overwhelming" but your feelings on this matter are subjective feelings only. You don't like GWB, the military-industrial complex, capitalism, imperialism, globalism, etc...etc... That's fine...lots of other people don't like these things either; but your biases do not mean that GWB, neocons, etc...etc...are guilty of anything at all.
What you need Ian is objective evidence. Something solid you can point to that will give credence to your dot-connecting. Otherwise you simply have an opinion which is unsupported.
They don't indict people for murder based on the low opinions of others. That would go double for mass-murder.
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Given a couple of days, easy enough to take apart
Get Mark Roberts here and it might be worth the effort |
John, how's your dismantling of the document coming along?
Have you contacted Mark Roberts yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | The testimonies are good to have in a single source - I'm still reading through the previous download I have.
But as an explanation, it's thin.
When I see an explantion that addresses all the issues, then I'll be impressed.
Is it a beta release pending feedback? |
I don't know. But he's very open to constructive feedback. His email address is on the cover page.
edit: Alternatively, you could register at JREF forum, which he frequents. Or you could email him and ask if he would address your concerns here (he has an active account, I believe). |
How about you, chek? Have you contacted the author with the issues you feel have not been addressed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | John White wrote: | Given a couple of days, easy enough to take apart
Get Mark Roberts here and it might be worth the effort |
John, how's your dismantling of the document coming along?
Have you contacted Mark Roberts yet? |
Nope and nope: didnt say I was going to do either: I said if Mr Roberts was coming over here, then it might be worth the effort
The problems with the document are rather obvious, but that doesnt mean I have to engage in pointing them out to critics: I have free will choice y'know
Yeah yeah, I know "that means you can't etc" is the obvious reply
But maybe thats not the reason I havnt done so
One for you to chew on: or disregard in an instant of conviction, as you see fit
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you believe in the truth of the truth movement and Mark Roberts paper is thus, to you, disinfomation, surely it would be worth your time to critique it so that it doesn't unduly influence those who you would wish to convince of the veracity of your own beliefs.
If you let it go unchallenged then surely you do the movement a disservice. Especially as you have claimed how easy it would be for you to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well as I already stated, he addresses the fact of collapse without tackling the specific nature of it.
He obviously put in a lot of work cutting and pasting all those firemen's statements, but actually says nothing at all about what made the collapse suspicious in the first place.
From what you say, I'm surprised nobody at JREF has spotted that rather enormous, extra-large, super-sized elephant in the room, and I really don't feel inclined to go chasing and addressing every half-baked theory that everyone in the world cares to invent. But perhaps they're still too busy chortling over the LC / AJ hitpiece to begin thinking 'critically' yet.
But feel free to relay anything you feel may be relevant to the issue, once they've all stopped partying over it and some sense of reality returns.
My opinion is not copyrighted and is available for fair use. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | Well as I already stated, he addresses the fact of collapse without tackling the specific nature of it.
He obviously put in a lot of work cutting and pasting all those firemen's statements, but actually says nothing at all about what made the collapse suspicious in the first place.
From what you say, I'm surprised nobody at JREF has spotted that rather enormous, extra-large, super-sized elephant in the room, and I really don't feel inclined to go chasing and addressing every half-baked theory that everyone in the world cares to invent. But perhaps they're still too busy chortling over the LC / AJ hitpiece to begin thinking 'critically' yet.
But feel free to relay anything you feel may be relevant to the issue, once they've all stopped partying over it and some sense of reality returns.
My opinion is not copyrighted and is available for fair use. |
Thanks. I'll definitely be relaying the highlighted phrase. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | John White wrote: | Given a couple of days, easy enough to take apart
Get Mark Roberts here and it might be worth the effort |
John, how's your dismantling of the document coming along?
Have you contacted Mark Roberts yet? |
Nope and nope: didnt say I was going to do either: I said if Mr Roberts was coming over here, then it might be worth the effort
The problems with the document are rather obvious, but that doesnt mean I have to engage in pointing them out to critics: I have free will choice y'know
Yeah yeah, I know "that means you can't etc" is the obvious reply
But maybe thats not the reason I havnt done so
One for you to chew on: or disregard in an instant of conviction, as you see fit |
Is this kind of like "Well if you don't know what you did wrong, then I'm not telling you"?
Or are you under the delusion that your critics are just a minor thorn in the side of the Truthiness Movement? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More like I'm currently ecouraging critcs to use some of that empathy stuff you referenced the other night... if critics did, the flaws would be obvious
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | More like I'm currently ecouraging critcs to use some of that empathy stuff you referenced the other night... if critics did, the flaws would be obvious |
Empathy is great for understanding someone's motivations and for treating them like humans rather than demon-spawn or cockroaches.
It's not so useful for accepting someone's views on an objective event. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsut_peopel
Minor Poster
Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| From my perspective it seems to me that Mark Roberts cares enough to actually go and do the research, put the time and effort in to try and make his case. It seems like something that the majority of truthers aren't bothered about doing, rather they seem content to parrot other peoples ideas without actually thinking about things, or researching things for themselves. If more truthers actually cared enough to get up and do some research, well perhaps there wouldn't be as many of you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm good to my word and read it... if the case is so self-evidant, perhaps the critics should get down to making it?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | From what you say, I'm surprised nobody at JREF has spotted that rather enormous, extra-large, super-sized elephant in the room, and I really don't feel inclined to go chasing and addressing every half-baked theory that everyone in the world cares to invent. But perhaps they're still too busy chortling over the LC / AJ hitpiece to begin thinking 'critically' yet. |
Having read it , I can't see the enormous errors, will you point them out please? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | I really don't feel inclined to go chasing and addressing every half-baked theory that everyone in the world cares to invent. |
Thanks. I'll definitely be relaying the highlighted phrase. |
This would be more representative of the substance of what I said (from the Jowenko thread), but if mischief is your aim, then go ahead with whatever you feel serves your interests best.
"and yet it still appears to me (photos and videos being all the direct evidence we have) that in classic style, the middle of the building is crippled (excuse my technical term), (it collapses symetrically), and then the sides fall in.
They obviously aren't going to remain vertical the whole way down (this wasn't a total shredding like the Towers) - at some point in their descent they will lean inwards to give the perimeter+70ft - that's feet not meters - collapsed zone as the 'debunk' photos show, surely?
As you point out - the firemen cleared a 600ft safety zone. That indicates they were expecting, according to their experience, an asymmetric collapse. As would we all, especially given what we now know about the construction.
A 'natural' sequential failure in just the right order (to produce symmetrical collapse) seems somewhere between exceedingly unlikely and astronomically impossible."
from:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4728&start=30 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | I really don't feel inclined to go chasing and addressing every half-baked theory that everyone in the world cares to invent. |
Thanks. I'll definitely be relaying the highlighted phrase. |
This would be more representative of the substance of what I said (from the Jowenko thread), but if mischief is your aim, then go ahead with whatever you feel serves your interests best.
"and yet it still appears to me (photos and videos being all the direct evidence we have) that in classic style, the middle of the building is crippled (excuse my technical term), collapses symetrically, and then the sides fall in.
They obviously aren't going to remain vertical the whole way down (this wasn't a total shredding like the Towers) - at some point in their descent they will lean inwards to give the perimeter+70ft - that's feet not meters - collapsed zone as the 'debunk' photos show, surely?
As you point out - the firemen cleared a 600ft safety zone. That indicates they were expecting, according to their experience, an asymmetric collapse. As would we all, especially given what we now know about the construction.
A 'natural' sequential failure in just the right order (to produce symmetrical collapse) seems somewhere between exceedingly unlikely and astronomically impossible."
from:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4728&start=30 |
If I post that at JREF, the response will be "Fallacy: argument from incredulity" and "Fallacy: confirmation bias" (and possibly "Fallacy: false dichotomy") expressed in many different ways.
That's not nearly as much fun.
If you have concerns about the document, the appropriate person to address them to is the author. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | .... and I really don't feel inclined to go chasing and addressing every half-baked theory that everyone in the world cares to invent..... |
That's an interesting statement.
What if :
The theory you have embraced (e.g. that there were isolated fires on a few floors of WTC7) is challenged by another theory (i.e. that there were extensive fires throughout the building)
Does the second become "half-baked" by definition? Simply because it wasn't the first theory you embraced?
Would the second require a higher standard of evidence, simply because it is second?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | chek wrote: | | I really don't feel inclined to go chasing and addressing every half-baked theory that everyone in the world cares to invent. |
Thanks. I'll definitely be relaying the highlighted phrase. |
This would be more representative of the substance of what I said (from the Jowenko thread), but if mischief is your aim, then go ahead with whatever you feel serves your interests best.
"and yet it still appears to me (photos and videos being all the direct evidence we have) that in classic style, the middle of the building is crippled (excuse my technical term), collapses symetrically, and then the sides fall in.
They obviously aren't going to remain vertical the whole way down (this wasn't a total shredding like the Towers) - at some point in their descent they will lean inwards to give the perimeter+70ft - that's feet not meters - collapsed zone as the 'debunk' photos show, surely?
As you point out - the firemen cleared a 600ft safety zone. That indicates they were expecting, according to their experience, an asymmetric collapse. As would we all, especially given what we now know about the construction.
A 'natural' sequential failure in just the right order (to produce symmetrical collapse) seems somewhere between exceedingly unlikely and astronomically impossible."
from:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=4728&start=30 |
If I post that at JREF, the response will be "Fallacy: argument from incredulity" and "Fallacy: confirmation bias" (and possibly "Fallacy: false dichotomy") expressed in many different ways.
That's not nearly as much fun.
If you have concerns about the document, the appropriate person to address them to is the author. |
Ah well, the thing is you see, I don't have any concerns about it. It's entirely consistent with the type of thing the US government has been suggesting for years now.
However I would be concerned that the intelligentsia at JREF equate one type of collapse as much the same as another. But then it's not my forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | | .... and I really don't feel inclined to go chasing and addressing every half-baked theory that everyone in the world cares to invent..... |
That's an interesting statement.
What if :
The theory you have embraced (e.g. that there were isolated fires on a few floors of WTC7) is challenged by another theory (i.e. that there were extensive fires throughout the building)
Does the second become "half-baked" by definition? Simply because it wasn't the first theory you embraced?
Would the second require a higher standard of evidence, simply because it is second? |
The first statement would be made in accordance with photo evidence (from both sides of the argument), and I have argued with Ignatz that heavy smoke does not necessarily signify heavy fires.
If that evidence seems incomplete when presented with further new evidence (such as the firefighter statements) then a choice has to be made - whether to be dogmatic and only accept the 'hard' photo evidence, or to balance the probablility that the firemen are honestly describing actual real world conditions that were not captured by photographers.
On balance, the statements trump the 'hard' evidence.
Were Mr. Roberts to have shown that not only was collapse predicted, but that because of 'x' it could only happen in such a way as to strongly mimic a controlled demolition, then depending on the veracity of his 'x' factor, he might have a case.
I hope that clarifies my reasoning, such as it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
