Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   peer reviewed paper: WTC downed via demolitions
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 61 of 143 (259558)
11-14-2005 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by randman
11-14-2005 12:10 AM


Re: Controlled Conspiracy
How do you know that {the WTC Conspiracy Theory} is not a conspiracy foisted on the public by the government to distract people from
Botch, Plame-game, Iraq-mud, Failed WOT, and all the other evidence of incompetence in the administration?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 12:10 AM randman has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 62 of 143 (259575)
11-14-2005 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by randman
11-14-2005 12:10 AM


Re: Controlled Demolition
randman writes:
Hmm...I've more looked at Creationists as people that bothered to look at the facts for themselves instead of just accepting what they are taught, and upon looking at the actual data, finding ToE is comprised mostly of false statements and exegerrations of data. That's how it was for me.
Well, sure, we know that's your viewpoint, but that's a discussion for another thread. What I'm focused on is why you, a Creationist, and Crash, an evolutionist, both accept the 9/11 ct. My operational hypothesis is based upon what you both hold in common, which is a fairy-tale view of government as a sinister, all-powerful agency able to commit and keep secret misdeeds on even the grandest of scales.
The only way to avoid being taken in by appealing flim-flam is to make acceptance provisional upon sufficient evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 12:10 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 10:36 AM Percy has replied
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 11-14-2005 11:22 AM Percy has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 63 of 143 (259587)
11-14-2005 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by randman
11-14-2005 12:10 AM


Re: Controlled Demolition
randman
It seems for a great many people that their nature is so gullible towards accepting only facts that fit into their paradigm that they reject out of hand, as overly fantastic, anything that doesn't match their beliefs concerning reality. The people bashing conspiracy theories, imo, tend to be people like that, at least to a degree. Even they will know of facts that don't match up, but they just think that one small thing is a real conspiracy or weird reality, but mostly accept only what we all were taught by heavy media manipulation to be true.
No,no randman you have it all wrong.We realize that there is a conspiracy but we are the disinformation police that the government has secreted into the population in order to heard you free-thinkers into fighting a hopeless battle while the forces of darkness take over.
But you already know this to be the case.Smart guy like yourself wouldn't be fooled by our little game now would you? Or would you? Hmmm...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 12:10 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 64 of 143 (259597)
11-14-2005 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Percy
11-14-2005 9:07 AM


Re: Controlled Demolition
Percy, I don't accept it. I am willing to give it a fair hearing, and you are not. That's the difference between you and me. Maybe if you took the same stance and gave criticisms of ToE a fair hearing, you'd see it my way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 11-14-2005 9:07 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 11-14-2005 11:02 AM randman has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 65 of 143 (259607)
11-14-2005 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by randman
11-14-2005 10:36 AM


Re: Controlled Demolition
randman writes:
I am willing to give it a fair hearing, and you are not.
Here's where you're wrong. You're making the same mistake as Crash, who has mistaken my reluctance to discuss the details of conspiracy theories with those caught in their grasp for being uninformed.
You claim to have given this a fair hearing. How can you say this after reading Professor Jones's paper (Steven Jones)? Can you describe for us what qualities you observe in this paper that qualify it as legitimate scientific research appropriate for a peer-reviewed journal? Are the similarities in style to the writings that appear at the websites of those with wacky ideas (perpetual motion machines, conspiracy theories, amazing new medicines, etc.) apparent to you?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 10:36 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 11:05 AM Percy has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 66 of 143 (259609)
11-14-2005 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Percy
11-14-2005 11:02 AM


Re: Controlled Demolition
No, I claim I am willing to give it a fair hearing. I have not made up my mind, nor studied the issue enough to form a definite opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 11-14-2005 11:02 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 11-14-2005 11:33 AM randman has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 67 of 143 (259612)
11-14-2005 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Percy
11-14-2005 9:07 AM


Re: Controlled Demolition
My operational hypothesis is based upon what you both hold in common, which is a fairy-tale view of government as a sinister, all-powerful agency able to commit and keep secret misdeeds on even the grandest of scales.
I guess I don't see this as a very grand scale.
Certainly well within the scale of misdeeds that we know the government has concealed in the past. Certainly not much larger than the actual scale of the events of 9/11 that we all agree did occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 11-14-2005 9:07 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 11-14-2005 11:40 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 68 of 143 (259618)
11-14-2005 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by randman
11-14-2005 11:05 AM


Re: Controlled Demolition
randman writes:
No, I claim I am willing to give it a fair hearing. I have not made up my mind, nor studied the issue enough to form a definite opinion.
So you're not trying to convince others it's true, you're just trying to convince them that they should all be investigating it more? Can you tell me where I should put this on my priority list? Is it more important than work? Than my family responsibilities? Than my around-the-house chores? Than this site's software development effort? Than my moderator responsibilities? Than my exercise activities? You see, I'm about maxed out, and unless it's more important than any of these things, I can't give it any more time than I already have. This is the most I've posted on a topic in weeks (work's in a busy period) and I'm begruding the time already.
Anyway, carry on your investigation, by all means. I hope you report back to this thread when your research is complete. I'd like to suggest, though, that you'll need direct evidence if you expect to be persuasive, not just the stuff from WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: The Collapse of WTC Building 7 and Professor Jones's article. I'm still interested in the questions I posed in my previous post about why you think it deserves serious consideration as science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 11:05 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 11:41 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 69 of 143 (259619)
11-14-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
11-14-2005 11:22 AM


Re: Controlled Demolition
crash writes:
I guess I don't see this as a very grand scale.
What do you consider a grand scale? Did we lose WWII and they haven't told us yet?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 11-14-2005 11:22 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 11-14-2005 3:07 PM Percy has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 70 of 143 (259620)
11-14-2005 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Percy
11-14-2005 11:33 AM


Re: Controlled Demolition
Percy, if you are wasting your time, that's not my business. I think it's an interesting topic, something many have come to believe is real in places like NYC. Of course, NYC is overrun with liberals so that alone does not convince me, but at the same time, it still seems strange to me that a fire alone would cause the towers to fall. I know there was some structural damage due to the planes hitting the towers, but nevertheless, it just looked a little odd.
But I learned something on this thread. I got to hear some rebuttals to the idea that the towers fell due to demolitions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 11-14-2005 11:33 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 11-14-2005 12:14 PM randman has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 71 of 143 (259621)
11-14-2005 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
11-12-2005 1:15 PM


So... the Government plotted to destroy the two towers to co-incide with a plot by Al Queda to fly planes into a building. Mounted enough explosive on a single floor of the building to flatten it without anyone noticing and then, having gone to all this trouble, still managed to have the President look stupid for reading a story book to kids for another seven minutes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 11-12-2005 1:15 PM randman has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 72 of 143 (259623)
11-14-2005 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by randman
11-14-2005 11:41 AM


Re: Controlled Demolition
randman writes:
Percy, if you are wasting your time, that's not my business.
I didn't say I would be wasting my time if I investigated more deeply. I said I have priorities, and my priority list was just a rhetorical way of pointing out that people only have so much available time, and when the time is already allocated then new activities can only be added at the expense of old ones. If you have the time and the interest then I think you should go ahead and investigate to your heart's content.
I know there was some structural damage due to the planes hitting the towers, but nevertheless, it just looked a little odd.
But I learned something on this thread. I got to hear some rebuttals to the idea that the towers fell due to demolitions.
That you are only learning important details about the towers' collapse here and not from the conspiracy sites or Professor Jones's article should tell you something. Respectable efforts at science are careful to consider all the evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 11:41 AM randman has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 143 (259672)
11-14-2005 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Percy
11-14-2005 11:40 AM


Re: Controlled Demolition
What do you consider a grand scale?
A decades-long experiment to watch black people die of syphillis or even worse, poison them with drugs known to be ineffective?
A secret program to abduct people, test LSD on them, and torture them?
Plans to shoot down a plane full of American college students or plant a bomb on John Glenn's rocket?
Stuff like that, I guess. Less people died at the WTC towers on 9/11 than died in motorcycle accidents that year. The drama of that event can't be overstated, or its effect on the national psyche; but objectively, allowing two jetliners to fly into New York's most aerially-recognizable landmarks and the Pentagon doesn't rate very high on my "scale of conspiracies."
I mean, if I'm right, all the government had to do was nothing. A few people would have had to justify it in their own minds - "maybe it won't happen, maybe it won't be that destructive, it'll galvanize the American people into taking action, so it's for the greater good" - and maybe obliquely warn their friends and family, but that's about the extent of the coverup. I don't see that as a really grand scale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 11-14-2005 11:40 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 11-14-2005 3:16 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 74 of 143 (259679)
11-14-2005 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by crashfrog
11-14-2005 3:07 PM


Re: Controlled Demolition
crash writes:
I mean, if I'm right, all the government had to do was nothing.
The conspiracy that is the topic of this thread is that the government, not the planes, brought down the WTC buildings through controlled demolition. This is what I've been calling a conspiracy fantasy because it involves government misdeeds and successful secret-keeping on a grand scale.
If you're talking about a different conspiracy, perhaps that the government knew in advance of the attacks, then while I personally don't put much stock in it, I don't consider it a conspiracy fantasy involving government misdeeds and successful secret-keeping on a grand scale. It seems within the realm of possibility.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 11-14-2005 3:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 5:30 PM Percy has replied
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 11-14-2005 6:17 PM Percy has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 75 of 143 (259709)
11-14-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
11-14-2005 3:16 PM


Re: Controlled Demolition
Percy, you are wrong. The OP deals merely with the idea that the planes alone could not have brought the towers down, and in that regard, I think there is merit. No, I am not an expert, but jet fuel would burn fairly quickly in an explosion. I just don't see steel being melted in the fashion laid out.
Ever cook something with a steel pot? Think about it.
I light fires in a fireplace sometimes hot enough to make iron turn red, but the towers are suppossed to be designed to handle fires. I haven't gone as far as crash and committed to thinking the gov knew what was going on, or was involved, but at the same time, something doesn't add up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 11-14-2005 3:16 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by nwr, posted 11-14-2005 5:46 PM randman has not replied
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 11-14-2005 6:07 PM randman has replied
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 11-14-2005 11:09 PM randman has not replied
 Message 82 by MangyTiger, posted 11-15-2005 1:35 AM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024