Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Conspiracy Theories
 Just to be clear...
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 15

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2006 :  14:34:46  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
This thread is for you to post evidence you have that supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to as "the official story") of what happened to WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 on 9-11-01.

If you do not have evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to as "the official story") of what happened to WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 on 9-11-01, please do not post anything on this thread.

Also, please do not post any evidence from the NIST Report, as I've seen it already.

Thank you in advance for you cooperation.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2006 :  14:39:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
Just to be clear, ergo, when you say "supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to as 'the official story') of what happened to WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 on 9-11-01," you're really just asking what happend to make the buildings collapse, right? Or in other words, you want people to post evidence that the WTC could collapse if a jet liner slammed into it, correct?
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2006 :  14:59:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

Just to be clear, ergo, when you say "supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to as 'the official story') of what happened to WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 on 9-11-01," you're really just asking what happend to make the buildings collapse, right? Or in other words, you want people to post evidence that the WTC could collapse if a jet liner slammed into it, correct?



No. I'm looking for evidence, other than the NIST Report, that supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to this as "the official story") of what happened to WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 on 9-11-01.

Think of it this way: Think of the NIST Report as being the official conspiracy theory of what happened to WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 on 9-11-01. Dave at least suggested--if not stated as much--that the NIST Report was the "official story." Now, find independent evidence that supports the findings in the NIST Report.

In other words, treat the NIST Report like the bible. One shouldn't cite what the bible says as evidence that what the bible says is true, right?

So I'm looking for independent--i.e., non-government-linked--evidence that the NIST report is valid.

Further, I don't want to get into, nor will I engage in, a debate over why the evidence I'm seeking needs to be non-government-linked. If you have non-government-linked evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to this as "the official story") of what happened to WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 on 9-11-01, please post it. If not, please move on.

If you want to whine about the criteria I have put and just now added to my request, start your own thread about it or write your representatives in congress.


No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2006 :  15:05:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

No. I'm looking for evidence, other than the NIST Report, that supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to this as "the official story") of what happened to WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 on 9-11-01.

I'm asking if we all agree that, for instance, planes hit the WTC. And if we do that, then the only thing that would be in dispute is the question of whether the act of crashing the planes was enough to make the towers collapse or whether something else-- like explosives-- was enough. I was just asking for clarification.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2006 :  15:20:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

No. I'm looking for evidence, other than the NIST Report, that supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to this as "the official story") of what happened to WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 on 9-11-01.

I'm asking if we all agree that, for instance, planes hit the WTC. And if we do that, then the only thing that would be in dispute is the question of whether the act of crashing the planes was enough to make the towers collapse or whether something else-- like explosives-- was enough. I was just asking for clarification.



Nothing is in dispute. I am simply (or what I thought was simply!) looking for non-government-linked evidence that supports the official conspiracy theory (what some refer to this as "the official story") of what happened to WTC 1, WTC2 and WTC7 on 9-11-01.

If the NIST Report says the buildings were hit by planes, then evidence supporting that would be appropriate. I am not disputing what the NIST Report says--I'm just looking for supporting evidence for what it says. If the NIST Report does NOT claim the buildings were hit by planes, then evidence supporting the buildings were hit by planes would not be appropriate for this thread.

The non-government-linked criterion will be challenging. Any evidence that cites the NIST Report will, obviously, not qualify as non-government-linked evidence. Keep in mind, however, that a source will not be "disqualified" under this criterion--only specific pieces of evidence. So if, say, MIT supports the official story with A, B and C, but C is taken from the NIST Report (while A & B weren't), I will toss out C, but still consider A & B. That is, of course, unless MIT is receiving government funds (Federal). That would make them government-linked.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2006 :  16:11:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

The non-government-linked criterion will be challenging.
Indeed. Since the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a government entity, then none of the floor plans or design notes qualify as "non-government-linked" evidence. In other words, all evidence related to how the buildings were built is evidence that you'll toss out. Any quotes from cops, firemen, or other governmental employees will also be prejudicially thrown out. All that's left is video, photographs, news articles and quotes from private citizens and non-governmental corporations, very few of whom were actually allowed into the crash site for safety reasons.

I'm surprised you're not asking for evidence that any evidence presented is non-governmental in nature. If someone posts a photo credited to Joe Schmoe, how do we know that Mr. Schmoe isn't on the government payroll? Of course, once you allow in that sort of speculation, all bets are off for anything that might be considered evidence under your restrictive rules.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2006 :  16:35:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
Is the port authority a FEDERAL agency? If so, then you are right--any evidence provided by them is inappropriate for this thread.

I'm not sure why you said "Of course, once you allow in that sort of speculation, all bets are off for anything that might be considered evidence under your restrictive rules."

I'm not making any rules of what is or isn't considered evidence. I just stipulated what I wanted posted on this thread.

So if you don't have any evidence of the type I'm looking for, please just stay off the thread.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2006 :  16:45:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

Is the port authority a FEDERAL agency? If so, then you are right--any evidence provided by them is inappropriate for this thread.
What's it matter if it's a Federal agency, when all sorts of state and city personnel have to be in kahoots with the Feds in order to pull off the explosives conspiracy? Aren't you dismissing government-sourced evidence because it will necessarily be "tainted" in order to maintain the cover-up? But yes, the Port Authority was created under the Federal Constitution as a governmental body since it deals with the regulatory authority of two independent states, as well as interstate and international commerce.
quote:
I'm not sure why you said "Of course, once you allow in that sort of speculation, all bets are off for anything that might be considered evidence under your restrictive rules."

I'm not making any rules of what is or isn't considered evidence. I just stipulated what I wanted posted on this thread.
Yes, you set the rules for what you will consider as "evidence" in this thread, and what you will "toss out."
quote:
So if you don't have any evidence of the type I'm looking for, please just stay off the thread.
Just like Cune, I'm trying to clarify what will and won't be accepted before even trying. You titled the thread, "Just to be clear..." so be clear, and answer the implied question:

If a photo is offered to you in this thread, and John Doe Private Citizen claims to have taken the photo, will you demand evidence that John Doe is not a Federal, state or local employee? Yes, no or maybe? What are the criteria?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Master Yoda
Skeptic Friend

59 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2006 :  16:47:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Master Yoda a Private Message
The Port Authority is not a federal agency. Its full name is The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. It's a bi-state agency. Thus their documents aren't acceptable, right?

Edited: Thought you'd said only federal agencies were excluded. Never mind!
Edited by - Master Yoda on 10/08/2006 17:02:51
Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2006 :  16:49:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message
From the other thread:

quote:
You have asked me for evidence that my theory is true and i have declined your request. It's not that i don't understand your request, i just choose not to comply with your request. Repeating your request will only result in me continuing to say "no."


So you can take this thread and shove it.

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2006 :  17:00:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Master Yoda

The Port Authority is not a federal agency. Its full name is The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. It's a bi-state agency.
I was wrong: "The Port Authority is jointly headed by the governors of New York and New Jersey."
quote:
Thus their documents should be acceptable, right?
Only if there's some sort of arbitrary assumption, "Federal equals crooked, but State equals honest." I don't know why that should be the case, since the Feds can just as easily bribe a state employee into lying as they can their own employees. The threat of jack-booted thugs smashing in your door to feast on your childrens' livers works either way.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Neurosis
SFN Regular

USA
675 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2006 :  18:50:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Neurosis an AOL message Send Neurosis a Private Message
Is all the mathematic models (evidence?) on all of the Conspiracy debunking sites (such as popular mechanics website), as well as, the eye witness video and extra-video reports of seeing two airplanes crashing into the buildings counted? Was not everything you, Ergo, are complaining about covered in the previous thread? The conspriracy theory you are supporting is not backed by evidence of any kind. The only thing (non government oriented) that can be proven is that two planes that were highjacked by islamic terrorist did crash into the building and set several floor on fire (seen on the video). All else is speculation. I think you are just trying to isolate all the evidence that could be considered and throwing it out just to say "Now, see here no evidence to support a non-conspiracy theory therefore it was a conspiracy." It is the same as the bible thumber saying "I am not considering any arguments of non christians or those affiliated with non christians, and since no christians disbelief in god he must be real." Seriously, where are you going with this?

Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson

[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink

Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.]
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2006 :  19:13:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.


quote:
Originally posted by ergo123


quote:
I'm not sure why you said "Of course, once you allow in that sort of speculation, all bets are off for anything that might be considered evidence under your restrictive rules."

I'm not making any rules of what is or isn't considered evidence. I just stipulated what I wanted posted on this thread.
quote:
Yes, you set the rules for what you will consider as "evidence" in this thread, and what you will "toss out."


But that isn't the same as making rules regarding what is evidence and what isn't evidence. I'm just asking people to restrict what they post on this thread. Believe it or not, what happens on this thread does not impact the entire world.

quote:
So if you don't have any evidence of the type I'm looking for, please just stay off the thread.
quote:
Just like Cune, I'm trying to clarify what will and won't be accepted before even trying. You titled the thread, "Just to be clear..." so be clear, and answer the implied question:

If a photo is offered to you in this thread, and John Doe Private Citizen claims to have taken the photo, will you demand evidence that John Doe is not a Federal, state or local employee? Yes, no or maybe? What are the criteria?



For you, Dave, use the following rule of thumb: When in doubt, just don't post it. I think that will make both our lives easier.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2006 :  19:15:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Master Yoda

The Port Authority is not a federal agency. Its full name is The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. It's a bi-state agency. Thus their documents aren't acceptable, right?

Edited: Thought you'd said only federal agencies were excluded. Never mind!



I did say only the Feds are excluded. Thanks for paying attention! I think you might be the first one to do that!! Dave took it upon himself to add state and local governments.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2006 :  19:17:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by pleco

From the other thread:

quote:
You have asked me for evidence that my theory is true and i have declined your request. It's not that i don't understand your request, i just choose not to comply with your request. Repeating your request will only result in me continuing to say "no."


So you can take this thread and shove it.



I'll take that as a "I don't have any evidence that didn't come from the official conspiracy theory..." Thanks for being honest--that's the first step.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2996 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2006 :  19:19:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message
NO! You said "non-government". That was not specific enough to mean just the Federalis. So quit patting yourself on the back.

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 15 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.27 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000