Scholars for 9/11 Truth
- Thread starter Makalakumu
- Start date
Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
Its easy to find crap on the internet that backs up whatever side you take-so Im finding out-shall I continue?
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
So, upnorth, were there any witnesses recall seeing teams of 'workman' spending several days cutting through steel girders and concrete walls to plant explosives? Of did the magic 'conspiracy fairies' just do it after dark?
Because that steel was inside concrete. What's more, there was an awful lot of it, so there must of been a whole lot of concrete being cut in to, in order to plant the explosives or thermite, depending on which conspiracy non-sense is being thrown around.
What's more, those 'explosives' went off on the same floors struck by the planes...i've seen the film over and over again, that's where the collapse begin. That was some nice targeting on the part of the 'hijackers' to make sure to hit the floors with explosives.
Also, I don't recall seeing any 'explosions'. You said a 'fireman' saw explosions? I thought the claim was that it was impossible for the jet fuel to melt steel. Explosives don't melt steel, they cause damage by kinetic energy. Thermite melts steel, and thermite isn't an explosive....it burns slowly. In fact, that's been part of the alleged claim of some of the conspiracy nuts, that it must have been thermite.....yet, as thermite doesn't explode, what exactly did the fireman alleged see? I'm a big confused.
What is clear is that the conspiracy wonks are spouting any statement they hear that doesn't make sense, whether it fits their theory or not, so as to throw enough crap in the air to make it look as if there is overwhelming evidence......of something. Much of their 'evidence' is contradictory.
Because that steel was inside concrete. What's more, there was an awful lot of it, so there must of been a whole lot of concrete being cut in to, in order to plant the explosives or thermite, depending on which conspiracy non-sense is being thrown around.
What's more, those 'explosives' went off on the same floors struck by the planes...i've seen the film over and over again, that's where the collapse begin. That was some nice targeting on the part of the 'hijackers' to make sure to hit the floors with explosives.
Also, I don't recall seeing any 'explosions'. You said a 'fireman' saw explosions? I thought the claim was that it was impossible for the jet fuel to melt steel. Explosives don't melt steel, they cause damage by kinetic energy. Thermite melts steel, and thermite isn't an explosive....it burns slowly. In fact, that's been part of the alleged claim of some of the conspiracy nuts, that it must have been thermite.....yet, as thermite doesn't explode, what exactly did the fireman alleged see? I'm a big confused.
What is clear is that the conspiracy wonks are spouting any statement they hear that doesn't make sense, whether it fits their theory or not, so as to throw enough crap in the air to make it look as if there is overwhelming evidence......of something. Much of their 'evidence' is contradictory.
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
When I was in BioInformatics (as a software developer, not a biochemist), the joke was that if you ask four BioChemists a question, you get five answers. Scientists simply don't always agree. Especially when you are looking for the causes of an event that was a) a singular event and b) not conducted under controlled circumstances.
However, it's one thing to have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of the data, and quite another to grow from that interpretation in a vast conspiracy accusation on what the data meanhs. This is why I invoked Occam's Razor, fwiw. It is also suspicious, from a scientific point of view, when one side as an a prior viewpoint that their interpretation of the data happens to line up with. This is why I pointed out the Doctor's web page of conspiracy advocay. Above and beyond that he is a Docor of Philosophy (Philosophy of Science) , not in any sort of hard physical science itself. He has a motivation for believing in and advocating an interpretation of data to fit a certain pattern of right-wing conspiracies. When his non-scientific world view (his view of life in general and politics in particuar) leads him to view certain data and evidence as having a root cause that happens to support that world view, his interpretation is suspect, when viewed against the opinions of many more who do not have a conspiracy driven agenda to support and who therefore view the meaning of the evidence as quite different
You know, what it reminds me most of is "Creation Scientists" who have a particular spiritual world view and therefore interpret evidence and data in a claimed "scientific" manner to support their world view, against the majority of scientits who don't have the same agenda and therefore view the data rather differently.
Anyway, what strikes about it all is that the implications of the conspiracy are really much farther reaching then are really being considered. For one thing, we have supposed accomplices of the supposed hi-jackers in jail because of evidence linking them to the supposed hijackers. If it all was just a conspiracy then an awful lot of evidence was planted or fabricated to implicate these men. Meaning one of two things, there were a *lot* of people involved, down to some pretty low level people, or the conspiracy was so tight as to fool a lot of people who were not involved but were part of investigating the causes. Both stretch reasonableness past the breaking point if you think about it.
However, deeper than that is that in order to pull off this level of deception, then planning and positioning and execution, planting of evidence for misdirection, etc...the conspiracy would've required planning that went back prior to Bush being in power,meaning that Bush is not the intigator but just another of the duped. Or in other words, this is not 'right-wing' conspiracy but a conspiracy far broader that trouches both parties. Which actually makes sense because if you look at a similar case, Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City, the same charges were made. Some demolitions experts claimed that this could not be the result of a single truck bomb but had to be the result of planted explosives on building columns. Except, that was under Clinton/Reno and to a much smaller scale, but very similar, if you take the conspiracy accusations seriously.
So, if you really believe that 9/11 was a setup by the government than to incorporate al the data, not just data from the events of that day but the implications of data for the investigation after the fact into leadup to the events, then the timeframe is too small to be merely a right-wing "neo-con" conspiracy but a conspiracy of 'someone' in the government whose reach spans political parties and whose existance spans administrations. Which is of course far more chilling than the belief that 911 was a neo-con plot to get us into Iraq in a war for oil.
Two things as an aside that come to my mind about that. One is that given the length and breadth of the conspiracy that in the end it supposedly left so much evidence that the events we saw were not what we really saw; a conspiracy so delicately precise and yet so sloppy... Also, if the motivation of the conspiracy was to get us into war in Iraq....the conspiracy which did *such* a good job of blaming it an Al Queda and Bin Laden did such a *bad* job of linking it to Iraq in any way.
In the world of bad movie watching we have a phrase called "IITS", or "It's In The Script", which means something that happens for no sensible reason within the context of the story, solely to advance the plot of the movie. One common usage of this is when normally bright, intelligent people do *really stupid* things that are out of character, or downright common sense, simply because the script needs them to so it can move on to the next plot point. If I was watching a movie based on the events from the point of view of the accused conspiracy, I would be thinking "how can people pull off such a wide-ranging and intricate conspiracy with such precision and yet be so inept at some *very key points* of what the conspiracy was to be about..I guess IITS"
Anyway, back on track. To take the conspiracy at face value and to take it seriously means to admit that the people behind the conspiracy are greater in scope than a given political affiliation. Which brings us back to religion again. The belief in an unseen power that manipulates events and people for some as yet unknown goal does indeed sound like a religion in many ways.I can believe in God and Angels and Demons at work in our world and you can believe in the Illuminati or some similar vague and hard to prove entity at work in the lives of people and events. Both of us can believe they are there, neither of us can really prove it, both of us think we see evidence of that existance in events around us, but both of us have arguments as to why the real, conclusive proof cannot be shown. I suppose in some small way it brings comfort in that life is not random but is the result of forces at work to be fought for or fought against, as the case may be.
So, in conclusion, you, upnothkyosa, asked for different point of views. At least be open minded enough to accept that others will have different points of view then yours, and not from an ability to understand the evidence ot unwillingness to accept the implications of a given interpretation of the evidence. I don't buy the proposed interpretation of events mostly on two grounds; Occam's Razor slahes through it like a knife-wielding bull in a silk shop, and that thepeople involved have a prior beliefs that support this interpretation of the events; meaning to me that if two people have two different opinions on the data, the one without the agenda in favor of a particular opinion tends to get my vote. That many who are conspiracy minded set end up having a faith in their conspiracy that reminds me much of a religion is just a ide curiosity of my own
Upnorthkyosa, I respect your opinions on martial arts a great deal, and while I often disagree with you on politics, I respect that you at least seem to be thoughtful and consistant in your view. On this issue, however, I think you've gone off the end
Take care,
However, it's one thing to have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of the data, and quite another to grow from that interpretation in a vast conspiracy accusation on what the data meanhs. This is why I invoked Occam's Razor, fwiw. It is also suspicious, from a scientific point of view, when one side as an a prior viewpoint that their interpretation of the data happens to line up with. This is why I pointed out the Doctor's web page of conspiracy advocay. Above and beyond that he is a Docor of Philosophy (Philosophy of Science) , not in any sort of hard physical science itself. He has a motivation for believing in and advocating an interpretation of data to fit a certain pattern of right-wing conspiracies. When his non-scientific world view (his view of life in general and politics in particuar) leads him to view certain data and evidence as having a root cause that happens to support that world view, his interpretation is suspect, when viewed against the opinions of many more who do not have a conspiracy driven agenda to support and who therefore view the meaning of the evidence as quite different
You know, what it reminds me most of is "Creation Scientists" who have a particular spiritual world view and therefore interpret evidence and data in a claimed "scientific" manner to support their world view, against the majority of scientits who don't have the same agenda and therefore view the data rather differently.
Anyway, what strikes about it all is that the implications of the conspiracy are really much farther reaching then are really being considered. For one thing, we have supposed accomplices of the supposed hi-jackers in jail because of evidence linking them to the supposed hijackers. If it all was just a conspiracy then an awful lot of evidence was planted or fabricated to implicate these men. Meaning one of two things, there were a *lot* of people involved, down to some pretty low level people, or the conspiracy was so tight as to fool a lot of people who were not involved but were part of investigating the causes. Both stretch reasonableness past the breaking point if you think about it.
However, deeper than that is that in order to pull off this level of deception, then planning and positioning and execution, planting of evidence for misdirection, etc...the conspiracy would've required planning that went back prior to Bush being in power,meaning that Bush is not the intigator but just another of the duped. Or in other words, this is not 'right-wing' conspiracy but a conspiracy far broader that trouches both parties. Which actually makes sense because if you look at a similar case, Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City, the same charges were made. Some demolitions experts claimed that this could not be the result of a single truck bomb but had to be the result of planted explosives on building columns. Except, that was under Clinton/Reno and to a much smaller scale, but very similar, if you take the conspiracy accusations seriously.
So, if you really believe that 9/11 was a setup by the government than to incorporate al the data, not just data from the events of that day but the implications of data for the investigation after the fact into leadup to the events, then the timeframe is too small to be merely a right-wing "neo-con" conspiracy but a conspiracy of 'someone' in the government whose reach spans political parties and whose existance spans administrations. Which is of course far more chilling than the belief that 911 was a neo-con plot to get us into Iraq in a war for oil.
Two things as an aside that come to my mind about that. One is that given the length and breadth of the conspiracy that in the end it supposedly left so much evidence that the events we saw were not what we really saw; a conspiracy so delicately precise and yet so sloppy... Also, if the motivation of the conspiracy was to get us into war in Iraq....the conspiracy which did *such* a good job of blaming it an Al Queda and Bin Laden did such a *bad* job of linking it to Iraq in any way.
In the world of bad movie watching we have a phrase called "IITS", or "It's In The Script", which means something that happens for no sensible reason within the context of the story, solely to advance the plot of the movie. One common usage of this is when normally bright, intelligent people do *really stupid* things that are out of character, or downright common sense, simply because the script needs them to so it can move on to the next plot point. If I was watching a movie based on the events from the point of view of the accused conspiracy, I would be thinking "how can people pull off such a wide-ranging and intricate conspiracy with such precision and yet be so inept at some *very key points* of what the conspiracy was to be about..I guess IITS"
Anyway, back on track. To take the conspiracy at face value and to take it seriously means to admit that the people behind the conspiracy are greater in scope than a given political affiliation. Which brings us back to religion again. The belief in an unseen power that manipulates events and people for some as yet unknown goal does indeed sound like a religion in many ways.I can believe in God and Angels and Demons at work in our world and you can believe in the Illuminati or some similar vague and hard to prove entity at work in the lives of people and events. Both of us can believe they are there, neither of us can really prove it, both of us think we see evidence of that existance in events around us, but both of us have arguments as to why the real, conclusive proof cannot be shown. I suppose in some small way it brings comfort in that life is not random but is the result of forces at work to be fought for or fought against, as the case may be.
So, in conclusion, you, upnothkyosa, asked for different point of views. At least be open minded enough to accept that others will have different points of view then yours, and not from an ability to understand the evidence ot unwillingness to accept the implications of a given interpretation of the evidence. I don't buy the proposed interpretation of events mostly on two grounds; Occam's Razor slahes through it like a knife-wielding bull in a silk shop, and that thepeople involved have a prior beliefs that support this interpretation of the events; meaning to me that if two people have two different opinions on the data, the one without the agenda in favor of a particular opinion tends to get my vote. That many who are conspiracy minded set end up having a faith in their conspiracy that reminds me much of a religion is just a ide curiosity of my own
Upnorthkyosa, I respect your opinions on martial arts a great deal, and while I often disagree with you on politics, I respect that you at least seem to be thoughtful and consistant in your view. On this issue, however, I think you've gone off the end
Take care,
OP
OP
Blotan Hunka said:
Every point this article brings up has been refuted by the research.
1. The fires were not even hot enough to weaken the steel beams. The highest temperature measured on the beams affected by the fire was 481 degrees F.
2. Even if the beams were weakened, the rest of the structure could have withstood the strain. This building was designed to take hits from multiple 707s and still stand according to the architects that built it. They described the plane strikes on these buildings "like poking a hole through a screen door."
3. The "pancake theory" of collapse violates the laws of physics. If you were to create a hypothetical simulation on computer where all of the floors were suspended in air and then start the collapse with 30 floors of weight coming down, every single time the falling mass hit a floor, inertia alone, would slow the mass' acceleration. The results of this simulation yeild a collapse time of 17 seconds. The trade centers fell in 10.6 seconds. This is almost freefall speed. Not only is the intertia of the floors negated somehow, but all of the steel that should have supported it. Even if this steel were somehow magically weakened (which we know it was not because the entire building was not on fire) then the time of this fall is absolutely impossible.
4. The symmetrical implosion of all three buildings violates the laws of physics. There would have been a greater resistence of this building falling in on itself then there would if it would have just collapsed asymetrically. Falling objects that bounce off of stuff, take the path of least resistence according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. These buildings fell into the path of the most resistence. This is physically impossible.
I could go on, but the research has already done this. This article is only repeating the assertions of the FEMA and NIST reports and these all have been debunked.
OP
OP
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
This article is only repeating the assertions put forth by NIST and FEMA which I have dealt with some of them above and the research put forth by the groups deals with far more detail and competency. The interesting thing about this is that NIST could not get the model of the WTC to fall in order to support their theory. So they switched to a computer simulation and altered a number of assumptions. They will not release these simulations to the public. To a scientist these simulations are tantamount to an experiment and for a scientist who wants to repeat this research in order to verify the findings, if they do not have this information, verification is impossible. No one has been able to replicate the NIST findings thus far and there report has been cited by structural engineers and various journals as "political" in nature.
A couple of problems with article does not address...
1. WTC 7 - there is absolutely no explanation as to why that building fell...as usual.
2. Molten metal and evaporated steel were observed on the scene. The fires and collapse could not have melted the metal or evaporated the steel.
3. This report makes no mention of eyewitness reports of explosions or video evidence of these explosions.
4. This report is based off of a computer simulation that no one is allowed to see.
This article is only repeating the assertions put forth by NIST and FEMA which I have dealt with some of them above and the research put forth by the groups deals with far more detail and competency. The interesting thing about this is that NIST could not get the model of the WTC to fall in order to support their theory. So they switched to a computer simulation and altered a number of assumptions. They will not release these simulations to the public. To a scientist these simulations are tantamount to an experiment and for a scientist who wants to repeat this research in order to verify the findings, if they do not have this information, verification is impossible. No one has been able to replicate the NIST findings thus far and there report has been cited by structural engineers and various journals as "political" in nature.
A couple of problems with article does not address...
1. WTC 7 - there is absolutely no explanation as to why that building fell...as usual.
2. Molten metal and evaporated steel were observed on the scene. The fires and collapse could not have melted the metal or evaporated the steel.
3. This report makes no mention of eyewitness reports of explosions or video evidence of these explosions.
4. This report is based off of a computer simulation that no one is allowed to see.
OP
OP
Blotan Hunka said:
Oh please, continue, but the stuff you will find will only be spitting out the unfounded assumptions of the NIST and FEMA reports. There is absolutely no way that I or anyone else can double check that stuff without the computer simulations that they ran. Why don't you spend your time more wisely and attempt to do something that will get those simulations out?
OP
OP
sgtmac_46 said:So, upnorth, were there any witnesses recall seeing teams of 'workman' spending several days cutting through steel girders and concrete walls to plant explosives? Of did the magic 'conspiracy fairies' just do it after dark?
The buildings were evacuated several times on the weekend of 9/8 and 9/9. They were empty for a total of 36 hours. They were also evacuated several times before this and engineers were observed going in carrying large items.
Explosions were observed going off far below the level of impact. These explosions were observed the encircle the building and travel up and down its length.
OP
OP
FearlessFreep said:
Thanks Jay.
The only thing that I can say is that I'm not willing to accept the official story in the light of this evidence without some sort of verifiable, repeatable, scientific study that backs up there findings. All of these, that I have seen thus far, have not been able to do this. In fact, they show that the NIST findings could not have occured. It only raises more questions and I'm not afraid to look for the answers. I know it sounds crazy, but if you are interesting in actually look at this and are unwilling to take the assumptions at face value, then you will come up with the same stuff that I'm seeing.
Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
I dont mean to attack you, upnorth. You seem like a nice guy. But your profile says you are a science teacher?
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
The only thing that I can say is that I'm not willing to accept the official story in the light of this evidence without some sort of verifiable, repeatable, scientific study that backs up there findings. All of these, that I have seen thus far, have not been able to do this. In fact, they show that the NIST findings could not have occured. It only raises more questions and I'm not afraid to look for the answers. I know it sounds crazy, but if you are interesting in actually look at this and are unwilling to take the assumptions at face value, then you will come up with the same stuff that I'm seeing.
The problem, John is that 'this evidence' as such is being presented by people with an a prior world view (anti-neo-con, pro-conspiracy) that renders such 'evidence' highly suspect. Forgive me for not jumping into a belief inthat evidence. As I said, the parallels to Creation Scientists is kinda striking
"We believe this is what happend"
"It couldn't have happened like that because of A,B and C. We think instead that *this* is what happened, which happens to fit out belief in [young earth creationism/neo-con-conspiracy]"
"No, A,B, and C can be explained through X,Y and Z"
"No, we refute that hrough D,E,and F"
"Nobody in the world believes D,E,F except you guys because it supports your theory. We give up, you guys are loons and not worth the effort to correct or educate"
"We win!!!"
How many times have you seen an online debate between two people of two different views and one of them decides it's not worth the time and effort to continue the debate? It doesn't mean the other side has 'won', it just means one side has considered it not worth bothering and gone on with more important things in their life. That's the same ting I see here. One side comes up wioth a theory that fits what they already believe anyway, and a way of viewing the data to make it fit the theory, the other side refutes it once, the first side disputes the refutation, and the other side decides it's not worth the trouble to keep chasing this one around the mulberry bush. So the first side claims some sort of victory which isn't really, but since the other side gave up first, the first side can use theirlast word as 'proof'.
This is what is happening here. The conspirists come up with a theory of what happened that goes counter to the official story, other people refute the conspirists theory, the conpirists explain away the refution and since no one comes through with a refutation of that explanation, the debate stops, not because the conspirists are 'right' but because it's not worth the continuing effort to try and deal with all the accusations
And you are taking the last part of the exchange as the 'proof' of the conspiracy and proof that the conspirists are correct, but I've seen enough of these things come along to know that that's how it *always* happens, long after no one will listen to the conspirists except Art Bell (and I don't think he really believes, he just likes to listen)
Which is why I'm pretty skeptical; since the people pushing the conspiracy theory are the people who already belive the conspiracy is there
One thing to consider that if the NIST and FEMA repors are wrong then they are either monumentally incompetent; notjust as organizations but the indiviuals within the organizations are completely inept at their jobs to have missed all this 'evidence' or 'they' (and by 'they' I mean *all* the people who were in on the investigations) had to be in on the conspiracy. meaning the conspiracy goes back many more years than just Dubya. If I were to take the presented evidence seriously hen it would have a lot of other implications; who knew, who was involved,what else would have to happen? And it's in there that things fall apart when I *don't* see evidence of what would have to happen and have happened for the evidence to support the conspiracy to be true
The problem, John is that 'this evidence' as such is being presented by people with an a prior world view (anti-neo-con, pro-conspiracy) that renders such 'evidence' highly suspect. Forgive me for not jumping into a belief inthat evidence. As I said, the parallels to Creation Scientists is kinda striking
"We believe this is what happend"
"It couldn't have happened like that because of A,B and C. We think instead that *this* is what happened, which happens to fit out belief in [young earth creationism/neo-con-conspiracy]"
"No, A,B, and C can be explained through X,Y and Z"
"No, we refute that hrough D,E,and F"
"Nobody in the world believes D,E,F except you guys because it supports your theory. We give up, you guys are loons and not worth the effort to correct or educate"
"We win!!!"
How many times have you seen an online debate between two people of two different views and one of them decides it's not worth the time and effort to continue the debate? It doesn't mean the other side has 'won', it just means one side has considered it not worth bothering and gone on with more important things in their life. That's the same ting I see here. One side comes up wioth a theory that fits what they already believe anyway, and a way of viewing the data to make it fit the theory, the other side refutes it once, the first side disputes the refutation, and the other side decides it's not worth the trouble to keep chasing this one around the mulberry bush. So the first side claims some sort of victory which isn't really, but since the other side gave up first, the first side can use theirlast word as 'proof'.
This is what is happening here. The conspirists come up with a theory of what happened that goes counter to the official story, other people refute the conspirists theory, the conpirists explain away the refution and since no one comes through with a refutation of that explanation, the debate stops, not because the conspirists are 'right' but because it's not worth the continuing effort to try and deal with all the accusations
And you are taking the last part of the exchange as the 'proof' of the conspiracy and proof that the conspirists are correct, but I've seen enough of these things come along to know that that's how it *always* happens, long after no one will listen to the conspirists except Art Bell (and I don't think he really believes, he just likes to listen)
Which is why I'm pretty skeptical; since the people pushing the conspiracy theory are the people who already belive the conspiracy is there
One thing to consider that if the NIST and FEMA repors are wrong then they are either monumentally incompetent; notjust as organizations but the indiviuals within the organizations are completely inept at their jobs to have missed all this 'evidence' or 'they' (and by 'they' I mean *all* the people who were in on the investigations) had to be in on the conspiracy. meaning the conspiracy goes back many more years than just Dubya. If I were to take the presented evidence seriously hen it would have a lot of other implications; who knew, who was involved,what else would have to happen? And it's in there that things fall apart when I *don't* see evidence of what would have to happen and have happened for the evidence to support the conspiracy to be true
Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
upnorthkyosa said:
But you believe this huge unrealistic conspiracy theory with no "evidence" that it happened this way either?? Saying somebody elses theory is wrong doesnt make your theory right.
Here. Enjoy. All the kooky theories you could ever want.
http://www.orwelltoday.com/conspiracy.shtml
Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
MIT
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
If you dont want to read the whole thing (because you simply dont want to believe any of it) than at least read this part.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter V Fire.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
If you dont want to read the whole thing (because you simply dont want to believe any of it) than at least read this part.
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter V Fire.pdf
Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."
-Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com). His latest book is Science Friction.
-Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com). His latest book is Science Friction.
Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
Well. I ahve been doing my own "research" as you can see and I noticed Eric Hufschmid on the list of members. Is he the apollo hoax Eric Hufschmid?
Yes.
http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/apollohoax.html
Watch the vid clip. LOL
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=ct
LOL
And heres another one of Prof. Jones's theories.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext and figures.htm
Hes also the guy who was involved in some "cold fusion" claims that he couldnt repeat or prove and was criticized pretty harshly for it.
Science at its best there folks! Woah.
Yes.
http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/apollohoax.html
Watch the vid clip. LOL
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=ct
LOL
And heres another one of Prof. Jones's theories.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext and figures.htm
Hes also the guy who was involved in some "cold fusion" claims that he couldnt repeat or prove and was criticized pretty harshly for it.
Science at its best there folks! Woah.
OP
OP
FearlessFreep said:
Prof. Jones is a conservative morman from Utah. He is someone who typically would support any sort of liberal agenda. This is a bi-partisen group.
I've long since given up trying to "prove" anything on the internet. I'm just trying to get a feeling as to what people think after they've read this research. The problem I'm encountering now is that nobody is reading it and they are injecting their own assumptions that
A. The final report is correct
B. There is no possible way that the buildings could have been demolished.
In reality, neither of these assumptions is a priori. There is absolutely no reason to assume that both MUST be correct.
The way I see it is that people are answering questions that are addressed in the research. I'm presenting some of the research in response to the questions. However, if one just made an effort to honestly read this material, I think we could move beyond this.
I don't think that at all. And I would like to point out that these people are not Art Bell. Take a look at their profiles and take a look at the people cited in the research.
In this case, it is different. These are folks who do not typically get caught up in conspiracy theories because they are professionals and their reputations and careers are on the line. When one reads the research, the first thing one notices is that they just lay out the evidence and let the cards fall where they may. One can check and attempt to verify this stuff and I am currently involved in doing this...
This is entirely possible and may be probable. It wouldn't be the first time the government messed on something...cough cough Katrina cough cough.
This is a valid point and I think that its merit truly needs to be considered, but one cannot be let to interfere in the actual interpretation of what actually did happen. If evidence exists that supports the assertion that the buildings were demolished, then it is possible that it occured. And if it is possible for the buildings to be demolished, then it would also be possible for all of the peices of the conspiracy that took the buildings down to fall into place...however improbable it might be. That is just classical logic.
OP
OP
Blotan Hunka said:
True. However, evidence exists that supports the theory that these buildings were demolished and this evidence was ignored by the NIST and FEMA reports as well as the 9/11 commission.
OP
OP
Blotan Hunka said:
This essay repeats, almost verbatim, the findings of the NIST and it states that its results are based on computer modelling...not actual observed evidence. Again, the problems that I outlined above and the problems outlined in the research presented still remain. This would be the case whether or not I want to "believe" anything...
OP
OP
Blotan Hunka said:
It is more then just a handful and all one has to do is read the research to find out. The bottom line is that very little of the official story is actually explained by the observable evidence...see for yourself.
Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
I would have written my own post on this but Im not a very good writer. This guy says what I was going to say anyways so Im justs going to post a little piece of it. The rest of his blog is a good read too.
http://citizenjo.blogspot.com/
http://citizenjo.blogspot.com/
Similar threads
