Simple question... Who is it more sensible to believe?

You gave -your- definition. But not everyone defines beliefs that way.

 

Do you read what you write?

I am not going to take a poll and I will bet most people have never looked up the nonsense in the dictionary.

Physics problems are not supposed to be like religion so why doesn't everyone want experiments? LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

psik

 

Not only do I read what I write, I frequently make corrections before the 20 minute mark ends that possibility .

I wouldn't take a general poll either. Right now, there are 2 people discussing what belief means- you and me. I not only looked up the term on google, I quoted their first definiton, and you responded to the post as well:

Dictionaries are by and large the references that most people accept for the definition of words. Without reference points, the sun could mean the moon and the moon could mean the sun, depending on who you're talking to.

I don't mind experiments. That video looks very cool by the way. I think it goes beyond what is really required for a good argument here though; even if we were to disregard the issue of no resistance once the upper portions of the twin towers hit the lower portions, the conservation of momentum still isn't followed. The only way the twin towers' collapses would concord with physics is if the lower portions were already collapsing before the upper portions even hit them...

[video=youtube;9YRUso7Nf3s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s[/video]

 

I've seen the following video before, but took a look at it again. Still think it's one of the better videos out there that exposes the fact that the official story has always been pretty shaky concerning the reasons for the collapse of the Twin Towers...

[video=youtube;7ySUrEiVFIM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ySUrEiVFIM[/video]

 

I also saw that video a while back as well. Note at the beginning of the video, all the "melted steel" theories as to the reason for the collapse of the towers. The theories were obviously morphed from all the eyewitness claims of seeing molten steel and all the news reports about the molten steel that persisted for weeks following 9/11. The official story with respect to the collapses is taken from the NIST report(s) and it's not just shaky, it's based on fraud.

 

Fraud implies intentional deceit. That's harder to prove. What's clear to me is that none of the official explanations as to the WTC building collapses holds up to scrutiny.

 

I agree but we are not a court of law. So that means we are left to recognize fraud on our own because you and I know no one at NIST will ever be charged with anything. The evidence for scientific and even criminal fraud is overwhelming.

Even setting aside that NIST committed fraud, there is no possibility that 3 high rise steel frame buildings were naturally globally destroyed in seconds and on the same day just like a perfectly planned CD, strictly due to fire and damage, no matter what the cause or the extent of damage and fire. As Psik put it in a hypothetical experiment, you could take out 5 stories from the WTC tower and have the top portion drop on the lower portion and it would not globally destroy the tower in seconds. The official story makes absolutely no sense.

 

The NIST group is not believable to me. They are clearly returning political favors, and insult the scientific method in the process. Their explanation was burning office fires and gravity caused the damage observed, and that is a ludicrous statement.

A&E approach the matter in a professional and rational manner. They get my vote.

 

I'm not sure that no one at NIST will ever be charged with anything. I'm also not sure that the evidence for scientific and criminal fraud is overwhelming. What I -do- feel sure about is that FEMA and NIST's conclusions don't even seem to satisfy some of the people writing the reports, and various mainstream theories as to what happened clearly disagree with each other.

Yes, this is where I think we have the strong case. Ofcourse, many if not most OCT supporters would disagree that the case is strong, and so the debate/discussion continues...

- - - Updated - - -

Mine as well. But the OCT supporters are generally with NIST.

 

Language is a problem in that most people are not very precise most of the time. People either say 'know' or 'believe', they do not use the word 'SUSPECT' very much. The words know and believe imply certainty but reality often has a degree of uncertainty and information is often incomplete or of questionable relaibility.

I strongly suspect that aircraft impact and fire could not bring down either tower and it would be easier to prove the case with the north tower.

I do not know and am not interested in believing.

psik

 

That's quite optimistic. The current political climate requires maintaining the OCT, it's critical to the racketeers in power.

It's quite a long list (as currently posted in the thread I created) but there's quite a bit more to be posted. I'm not sure what quantity reaches the "overwhelming" level for you but for me it was surpassed in the very first post.

There are at least 2 mainstream engineering groups that disagreed with NIST's WTC7 theory, ARUP and I believe the NYC Port Authority but I'm not sure if I have the 2nd one correct.

Given that the OCT is mostly a NIST invention insofar as the collapses go and NIST's theory is contrived using falsified data, OCT supporters are linked with a fallacy. So even if there is an extremely remote possibility that the 3 towers did all naturally collapse as a result of fire and damage, the OCT supporter's case rests on an extremely remote possibility.

 

Tell me about it. I remember doing an essay in my English class at college and literally having to make it clear to my -professor- that I was uncomfortable with stating that my case was stronger then I felt it was.

I once told someone that a theory is an educated guess, as far as one's education goes. The same can apply to beliefs. I certainly qualify "suspect" as different from "believe", but the bottom line in any discussion is where 2 people disagree on something is -why- they have different suspicions/beliefs/theories. I think that's the important thing to focus on in order to have a productive discussion/debate between people who disagree on things.

 

well said ...

 

Heck, facts don't matter when you don't understand physics, aircraft, ATF processes at the time, etc.. Truther true belief needs no facts.

 

Occam's razor. The leaps of faith and logic you have to make to be a Truther is legend.

 

Political climates can change.

I'm not sure either, laugh . I think we should take things one step at a time though. Instead of trying to persuade me that there is overwhelming evidence of scientific and criminal fraud, I think the first order of business should be to get OCT supporters to question that the OCT is essentially correct.

I prefer a third group that's certainly fairly well known if not mainstream, AE911 Truth. Mainly because they've got easily accessible articles on the subject . You may have already posted this one in your NIST thread:
#1 of 6: NIST's WTC 7 Reports: Filled with Fantasy, Fiction, and Fraud

And yes, I'm aware that the title has "Fraud" in it, but if you look into the body of the article, you won't find a single repetition of the word. I would prefer some words that -can- be found in the body of the article, such as a sub title, "NIST's pattern of omissions and distortions".

Agreed. But they certainly don't agree with our viewpoint, and so the debate continues ...

 

I certainly like Occam's razor. In its introduction to the term, wikipedia states: "The principle can be interpreted as stating Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected", and that's something I can certainly respect. That being said, our mutual like of Occam's razor is about as far as we agree. From my point of view, it is those who believe in the official story who are making far more assumptions by taking its conclusions for granted, then those who question those conclusions, refusing to assume that they are right just because we are told they are.

There is a documentary called Zeitgeist you may have heard of. I don't agree with all of it, but there is one part that I like quite a bit, which is an interview with David Ray Griffin. In it, he states the following concerning myths:
"A myth is an idea that, while widely believed, is false. In a deeper sense, in the religious sense, a myth serves as an orienting and mobilizing story for people. The focus is not on the story's relation to reality, but on it's function. A story cannot function unless it is believed to be true in the community or the nation. It is not a matter of debate that some people have the bad taste to raise the question of the truth of the sacred story. The keepers of the faith won't enter into debate with them. They ignore them or denounce them as blasphemers."

I firmly believe that the official story is a very strong myth of our time. It is something that is not to be questioned by the keepers of the faith, and those who -do- question it are generally denounced with insults and very little attempts to actually understand why they disagree with the faithful's views on the subject.

 

To say the official story is a myth is to discount what the world saw live on TV, the ATC transcripts, the witnesses, the calls from the victims, and even physics. That doesn't mean there are no errors in the official investigation but due to the devastation no one will ever get everything correct. The few errors in the official investigation cannot discount everything.

Just to let you know many of my friends are now retired from one of the Air Traffic Control Centers that was involved. None of them have identical ideologies. None of them are concerned with Truther conspiracies.

 

I don't agree.

I think it might be better to focus on what we -agree- on here; that there are errors in the official investigation/story. What errors do you believe the official story has?

Ever here of Robin Hordon? There's an article on what he has to say on the matter below...

Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job

 

He didn't work ATC then and the whole story is hearsay. Typical of Truther evidence.

Let me also say he worked ATC for 11 years. First, we don't know if he worked tower or high altitude where the action occurred. Second he worked ATC For only 11 years which means he either quit early or was let go. A lot can be read into that but since that is never divulged do we leave it up to conspiracy like the truther's do?

 

So what? The point is, he's a former air traffic controller that came to believe -within hours- of the events of 9/11 that 9/11 was an inside job. Did you even bother to click on the link to find out why?

 

Let me also say he worked ATC for 11 years. First, we don't know if he worked tower or high altitude where the action occurred. Second he worked ATC For only 11 years which means he either quit early or was let go. A lot can be read into that but since that is never divulged do we leave it up to conspiracy like the truther's do?

 

If that's what floats your boat. Now could you answer my question?

 

You mean you believe a guy that couldn't keep his job and wasn't present over those that were and have since retired? Give me your logic.

 

I ask a simple question hoping for a simple answer and instead I get this -.-. You stated previously "he worked ATC For only 11 years which means he either quit early or was let go". It doesn't seem to have entered your mind that perhaps he started late in his life. Next, you have apparently taken your already sketchy speculation and stretch it even further, now claiming that the guy couldn't keep his job. Instead of continuing your speculations that you claim to be facts, how about answering my original question?