The guy is a religious nut. He isn't a scientist or an engineer. You might as well go to a used car salesman for brain surgery.
WTC7 was demo'd. Theres radio evidence of the crews that did it. Afaik, no one is denying it wasn't. While I find it hard to believe that it was demo'd in a matter of hours so precisely with demo crews working in a fully engulfed, already collapsing building, it is at least plausible. WTC7 is not necessarily 'the smoking gun' of an inside job. To be clear, I DO believe it was an inside job (at the very least that someone within our establishment knew it was going to happen and took steps to help it along), but WTC7 is not proof.
Scott, I never discuss this with "inside job" believers. It's like arguing a religion - "Your religion is wrong. Mine is right." It is absolutely fruitless. But I will make an exception this one time. Concerning your 3 bullet points ... Do you realize that their is a mountain of evidence that Al Qaeda planned and executed the attacks using 4 commercial jets they hijacked? Can you accept that that works both ways? Those who do not believe in the "inside job" are not guided by fear. You may have been told they are guided by fear, and you may wish to believe they are guided by fear, but they are not. Seth
You’re still jumping logical steps there. Some kind of cover-up (and you’d established nothing about who, what or how that might be) could be for all sorts of reasons. It could be about covering up mistakes (or perceived mistakes) in the response to the terrorist threat or the attack itself, it could be about covering up design flaws in the building or illegal changes to the structure (maybe as part of a government installation they don’t want to reveal details of). In line with the scientific and logical principles referred to by the OP, even if you disprove option A that doesn’t mean you’ve proven your choice of option B; there remains a whole alphabet of possibilities. That’s what you’re trying to establish. You can’t assert your conclusion as evidence for your conclusion. I’m not really interested in the technical details (which I suspect neither of us are capable of fully understanding) but again logically, all this research seems to be doing is challenging on specific aspect of a much wider report. Even if the NIST conclusion about how and why WTC7 collapsed was wrong, that doesn’t automatically means it was intentionally wrong, that it was an attempt to cover anything up or, if it was, tell us what it would be to cover-up. Again, we’re back to the point that to make positive claims you would need to present positive hypotheses, otherwise all you can legitimately say is what isn’t true. Even if they did get the WTC7 right, I wouldn’t conclude they got the Twin Towers right. That’s another logical flaw, presuming that it someone makes one mistake everything else they say is automatically wrong. I guarantee that even you’ve made mistakes in the past but that doesn’t mean you’re automatically wrong here (that’s just coincidence ).
This is pretty lame. The first step in the scientific method is to look at the evidence put forward and analyze it. https://www.google.es/search?q=scie.....69i57j0l5.5982j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 You don't seem interested in getting at the truth. The people I was referring to in post #1 who can't come to a logical conclusion are friends and relatives and workmates. On internet forums there is another kind of person - a government sophist who doesn't even believe his own arguments. http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html https://openheartedrebel.com/2012/0...-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/ Let's not get them confused.
I don’t believe you and I would be capable of getting at the truth of 9/11 and I don’t think continuing to constant back-and-forth about specific technical details by laymen is in any way beneficial to anyone (apart for the people who continue to make money from the controversy). Your thread was purportedly about people applying proper scientific and logical practices though, not specifically 9/11. If that was just a cover to retrigger the 9/11 debate, we can end our discussion here. If you want to continue to discuss logic and science, maybe with the 9/11 debate as one of the examples, I’d be happy to proceed. Is it that they can’t come to a logical conclusion or just that they don’t come to the same conclusion as you? That isn’t necessarily the same thing.
Your refusal to look at the details pretty much destroys your credibility as a truth-seeker. I'll continue talking to you anyway though. Does this make you a little suspicious? http://physics911.net/georgenelson/ (excerpt) ---------------------------------------------------------------- In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling. ----------------------------------------------------------------
Not in the manner you think it should. A random blog with an obvious bias making unsupported assertions doesn’t strike me as hugely significant. I’ve no more or less reason to believe there were no identifiable aircraft parts found at the three sites as I did before I read that. I’d be surprised if the official report doesn’t say something about the identity of the aircraft involved being formally confirmed one way or another. I don’t see how commentary on that aspect could not make reference to it and if there really is zero mention of the identity of the aircraft in any official reports, surely that would be referenced directly. You obviously don’t want us to take the official story on face value, so why should we do the same with yours? The need to apply logical and scientific principles apply both ways.
I have heard it was an intentional taking down of bld 7, yet no one has ever admitted it officially. Which presents its own problem if true. I do not think that we as a nation were personally involved in the attack. I do entertain the idea that our admin. knew of the attack, and the neocons in that admin allowed it to happen in order to get the reason to implement PNAC. And that has driven our foreign policy since 911. They even mentioned in that paper that they needed a great event in order to justify PNAC. Coincidence that we got that? I doubt it. Another coincidence that this reference in that paper was removed post 911? Too many coincidences on that fateful day. Our intel looked like the Keystone Cops. The same intel that can take down nations? That can spy on all americans? Right!
TRUTHERS, is a real problem, due to the ability to call EVERYstinkingINGTHING a conspiracy theory, even the slightest question. THAT, is ignorant.
That would be true if like you, I hadn't done the research. What really matters is that there was and still is a massive coverup of 9/11 by the US government. Based on my extensive research, this is not theory or conjecture, it's fact. I've posted much detail on the massive coverup. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mission-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.495859/ http://www.politicalforum.com/index...llapse-of-world-trade-center-7-theory.514312/ Evidence is not a conclusion but leads to a conclusion. Study the evidence, it's as clear as day, except to those in denial. Ah but the remainder of your post implies you didn't and never will. Then you have no basis for your beliefs other than they are strictly your beliefs. I can't speak for you but the details of the coverup are not over my head despite that some are highly technical. If you have no interest, speak for yourself, I don't share your mentality. I've done research on this subject for almost 15 years now on a nearly daily basis. I presume your research is either non-existent or consists of what you've been fed by the story tellers (or heard otherwise) and their complicit media. If you refuse to study the evidence because as you already admitted ("I'm not really interested in the technical details") and you also claim without even studying the evidence that you automatically would not be capable of understanding it anyway, you would have zero clue about what's right, what's wrong and what screams of a deliberate coverup. You call yourself "HonestJoe" but what I see here is that you're completely dishonest with yourself. Then again, I can only post the facts, I can't make anyone study them, understand them and come to a reasonable conclusion. If you refuse to take the first step (study), you cannot have any understanding and your conclusion is based on nothing but personal belief.
The question should be why are you posting in this thread? It's obvious your only interest lies in trolling the thread.
There apparently is not one single topic on 9/11 started in a different section of this forum that won't eventually be moved to the "Conspiracy Theories" section. It's as if 9/11 didn't really happen, it was merely a "conspiracy theory" and not historical fact. That fact alone fully supports and validates this OP.
pointing out truther stupidity and pointing out this thread is bullshit, and has no business in a science forum, isn't trolling.
No, it's just that moronic conspiracy theories, belong in the conspiracy forum. You can discuss 9/11 anywhere you wish. Once you start with the truther stupidity, it needs moved to the appropriate forum.
As I’ve said, I’m not interested in discussing the specifics of 9/11 (especially not on this thread) but more about the principles the OP was talking about. My point on that in relation to 9/11 is that to make a specific accusation of cover-up, you’d need to be able to established a working hypothesis, an internally consistent sequence of events you’re prosing actually happened which could then be tested against the available evidence. Can you do that? I’m not saying I have zero clue but I’m saying that I don’t know any definitive answers. I’m not convinced anyone has definitive answers, not least because nobody serious involved in this is approaching it in a logical and scientific way as to establish any definitive answer. It’s all back-and-forth about specific elements and aspects, pointless circular arguments and unrelated ulterior motives. Plenty of people get their entertainment and a few people make some money so none of them actually have a vested interest in reaching a definitive conclusion, regardless of which way it fell.
I'm sorry but you're not making any sense. You say you're not interested in discussing the specifics of 9/11, you obviously haven't examined the contents of the links I provided, yet you're asking me if I can provide a "sequence of events" which could be "tested against the available evidence", which I have provided in intricate detail in this forum in the links I posted. What are you talking about? You don't have to outright say you have zero clue, you show have no clue because you've already admitted you're not interested and refuse to look at the evidence. Unless and until you do you will never have any idea and there's no point in discussing this topic with you if you insist on remaining willfully ignorant. And this is the essence of what this particular thread is all about.
If you have no interest in discussing the topic of this thread, stay the **** out of it. You are trolling and violating the rules of this forum.
The point is that 9/11 isn’t the topic of the thread, scientific process is (at least, that’s what the OP claimed). 9/11 was presented as an example of people not following scientific process. The OP (and you I think) believes the supporters of the “official story” are the only ones with that failing but I’m suggesting that you’re all equally guilty. Stating a simply hypothesis (not links or claims about specific arguments, an actual full hypothesis directly in your own words) would be a starting point for such a process and I’m saying your unwillingness or inability to present one supports my point.
It sure is in part. The very first post includes the video called: In conjunction with cognitive dissonance AND 9/11. This is a major fallacy usually regurgitated by defenders of the official 9/11 narrative. The fallacy states that unless one can present an alternative theory, the official theory stands as fact, regardless that it is unsupported and often contradicted by the facts. Conversely, one cannot have the capability to recognize lies unless one can present an alternative theory. The burden of proof always rests with the claimant. And the claimant in this case is the US government. All your posts validate the topic of this thread. I'm sorry but unless you're willing to be honest with yourself, form an interest in doing the research and examine the evidence in an unbiased manner, there's nothing to discuss with you about 9/11, not even the psychology behind your own cognitive dissonance. You're in denial and wish to remain in denial, plain and simple.
