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
 What I don't get...
 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 - 10/25/2006 :  09:55:43  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
What I don't get about the active members of SFN who regularly post on my threads is:

You dismiss the possibility that the WTC towers collapsed with the help of explosives because you have seen no evidence to support that theory—yet you find the official story credible, even though you've seen no evidence to support it.

Sure, you've seen test results from a lab here and there and statements from the volunteer scientists working the case. But no crime scene evidence was thoroughly tested such that it could eliminate the CD Theory--or support the official story either.

NIST says that they came across no evidence that would support the CD Theory—but they don't say they looked for it and couldn't find any, they just say they didn't see any.

Most of the physical evidence from the scene was hauled away before anyone investigating the matter was allowed on the scene. So what you have is NIST speculating on what happened inside the tower after the planes impacted, up until the buildings were "poised to collapse." Not only was there very little, if any, physical evidence to base these speculations on, but eyewitness accounts that disagreed with their conclusions were disregarded. For example fire fighter observations that the south tower had only 2 small fires was obviously ignored in favor of the ‘blazing fires' that would have needed to be there to ensure their pre-conceived conclusion would be supported. Fire fighters' assessments of fires are probably very accurate--why were they disgarded?

NIST speculates on what happened inside the towers but has no physical evidence that their speculations are supported—yet you guys swallow up every drop of their story. An NIST won't show their models or the final, tweaked inputs they used to reach their conclusions--so their models and inputs cannot be independently verified.

Even in the face of observed collapse events and post-collapse events that are inconsistent with NIST speculations (quick onset, total collapse of the towers (as reported by NIST, final report, page 179) the amount of dust generated, ejection of large amounts of steel and the paucity of twisted metal to list but a few) you stick to the NIST explanation as you “most plausible theory." But NIST offers no theory, only speculation.

Kil, in a different thread, commented that I “simply discount [your] methodology for considering evidence.” But I don't see what evidence you have for the official story—unless you consider expert speculation “evidence.” But if you do consider expert speculation to be evidence, then there is evidence of equal quality for the CD Theory.

So what am I missing here? What is it that you see that I don't?


No witty quotes. I think for myself.

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2006 :  10:15:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That a building collapsed from being hit by a jet is not extraordinary.

That a building with hundreds of people going in and out was secretly rigged with explosives which were conveniently placed right before a jet crashed into it and then were set off at precisely the right time is extraordinary.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2006 :  10:39:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That a building collapsed from being hit by a jet is not extraordinary.

That a building with hundreds of people going in and out was secretly rigged with explosives which were conveniently placed right before a jet crashed into it and then were set off at precisely the right time is extraordinary.



That's not how science works. No one judges what is or isn't "extrordinary." In science claims require evidence, period.

And it could be argued that a building collapsing after being hit by a plane IS extrordinary in that while buildings have been struck by planes in the past, none of those buildings collapsed as a result--until 9-11-01. Also, Building 7 collapsed but was NOT hit by a plane.

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

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2006 :  10:46:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

What is it that you see that I don't?
I see you misrepresenting the NIST investigation, misrepresenting the actual observations, misrepresenting standard scientific and forensic methods and misrepresenting what's been said here on the SFN.

- 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 - 10/25/2006 :  10:51:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

What is it that you see that I don't?
I see you misrepresenting the NIST investigation, misrepresenting the actual observations, misrepresenting standard scientific and forensic methods and misrepresenting what's been said here on the SFN.



In what way have I misrepresented the NIST investigation?

In what way have I misrepresented the actual observations?

In what way have I misrepresented standard scientific and forensic methods ?

In what way have I misrepresented what's been said here on the SFN?

Are you saying that you don't believe the NIST Report is based on speculation and not evidence?

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

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1884 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2006 :  10:52:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message
NIST says that they came across no evidence that would support the Horta Theory?but they don?t say they looked for it and couldn?t find any, they just say they didn?t see any.

I understand the logistical problems of getting a full grown Horta into the building, that's why I'm suggesting that they used hundreds of eggs instead. The initial heat of the fire caused them to hatch, and the rest you already know.

Since Horta eggs are so decorative, getting them into the building would not have raised any suspicion. It could have been done at the busiest time and in broad day light.

Life is good

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2006 :  10:54:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
quote:
You dismiss the possibility that the WTC towers collapsed with the help of explosives because you have seen no evidence to support that theory—yet you find the official story credible, even though you've seen no evidence to support it.

There is an abundance of scientific evidence that is obvious to any reasonable person, however you are not reasonable so you do not think there is evidence. The level that you set the bar at for evidence means that for you there will never be a definite answer, however you will always have your paranoid belief to hold onto.



If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2006 :  11:06:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by furshur

quote:
You dismiss the possibility that the WTC towers collapsed with the help of explosives because you have seen no evidence to support that theory—yet you find the official story credible, even though you've seen no evidence to support it.

There is an abundance of scientific evidence that is obvious to any reasonable person, however you are not reasonable so you do not think there is evidence. The level that you set the bar at for evidence means that for you there will never be a definite answer, however you will always have your paranoid belief to hold onto.






If you look at what you are referring to as "evidence" with a critical eye, you would see that it is really speculation.

No one was allowed to examine much of the evidence of the crime--it was almost all shipped out or burried by the time either NIST or the 9/11 Commission began their investigations. So no one at NIST or the 9/11 Commission had any evidence of what happened in the building between impact and being poised for collapse.

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

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9669 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2006 :  11:08:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

quote:
Originally posted by Ricky

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That a building collapsed from being hit by a jet is not extraordinary.

That a building with hundreds of people going in and out was secretly rigged with explosives which were conveniently placed right before a jet crashed into it and then were set off at precisely the right time is extraordinary.



That's not how science works. No one judges what is or isn't "extrordinary." In science claims require evidence, period.
A plane struck the building. Evidence: Photo documentation of the strike, and photo documentation of the external structural damage.

The towers fell. Evidence: A huge pile of rubble.

The plane was responsible. Inference: Structural damage, loss of structural support thanks to material degradation due to heat from fires. (lots of supportive evidence that this was sufficient)

Explosive Charges was responsible. Superfluous assumptions and/or conditions: A large number of highly skilled people needed to access many internal structures in order to plant a huge mass of explosives and control-equipment, on many floors since no one could predict exactly which floors would be hit. This equipment needed to be isolated from damage and fires in order to survive to the point where they could be set off.

quote:
And it could be argued that a building collapsing after being hit by a plane IS extrordinary in that while buildings have been struck by planes in the past, none of those buildings collapsed as a result--until 9-11-01.
That is what you have been arguing here on the board, but your argument has been found wanting, and therefore dismissed. Among other things, because we have never seen a building of similar design hit by such a large aircraft before, even if planes have crashed into buildings several times before.

Two buildings of the same design has been hit by aircrafts of a similar size. Both had about the same amount of jet fuel injected into the building. Both fell.
quote:
Also, Building 7 collapsed but was NOT hit by a plane.

No, I understand it was hit by fire and a falling building.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2006 :  11:09:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

In what way have I misrepresented the NIST investigation?

In what way have I misrepresented the actual observations?

In what way have I misrepresented standard scientific and forensic methods ?

In what way have I misrepresented what's been said here on the SFN?
In a variety of ways. Just read your own posts in your eleven topics here with an open mind.
quote:
Are you saying that you don't believe the NIST Report is based on speculation and not evidence?
I didn't say any such thing, since I don't usually tend towards such sophomoric false dichotomies.

- 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

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2006 :  11:44:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
Here we go, 'round again.....

I say that the whole thing was just a coincidence. I say that the airplanes were innocently flying along when God let forth a bean fart that diverted them into the towers, and elsewhere. The fart ignited from static electricity and started the fires, and the back draft brought the buildings down. All of them.

The rest is no more than a cover-up by Christian scoundrels trying to place the blame on Islamic idiots.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2006 :  11:52:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse


quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

quote:
Originally posted by Ricky

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

That a building collapsed from being hit by a jet is not extraordinary.

That a building with hundreds of people going in and out was secretly rigged with explosives which were conveniently placed right before a jet crashed into it and then were set off at precisely the right time is extraordinary.



That's not how science works. No one judges what is or isn't "extrordinary." In science claims require evidence, period.


quote:
A plane struck the building. Evidence: Photo documentation of the strike, and photo documentation of the external structural damage.


But it's pure speculation when it comes to defining the influence that damage had on the observed fact that the buildings collapsed (even when ignoring the extent to which they collapsed).

quote:
The towers fell. Evidence: A huge pile of rubble.


But how the pile of rubble ended up as the pile of rubble it did is inconsistent with the explanation of what caused the building to become poised for collapse. Without examining the rubble, all of us are left to only speculate the true mechanism behind the structural failure that caused it.

quote:
The plane was responsible. Inference: Structural damage, loss of structural support thanks to material degradation due to heat from fires. (lots of supportive evidence that this was sufficient)


No--speculation that it was sufficient. And since when is a theory built upon a foundation of sufficiency? And Building 7 was not hit by a plane. FEMA concluded "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

quote:
Explosive Charges was responsible. Superfluous assumptions and/or conditions: A large number of highly skilled people needed to access many internal structures in order to plant a huge mass of explosives and control-equipment, on many floors since no one could predict exactly which floors would be hit. This equipment needed to be isolated from damage and fires in order to survive to the point where they could be set off.


All speculation on your part.


quote:
And it could be argued that a building collapsing after being hit by a plane IS extrordinary in that while buildings have been struck by planes in the past, none of those buildings collapsed as a result--until 9-11-01.


quote:
That is what you have been arguing here on the board, but your argument has been found wanting, and therefore dismissed. Among other things, because we have never seen a building of similar design hit by such a large aircraft before, even if planes have crashed into buildings several times before.


Oh, but you've seen 19 arab terrorists slip past the most sophisticated defense system in the world, and, with box cutters, commandier 4 aircraft and succeed in hitting 3 out of 4 of their targets before? The Twin Towers were designed to withstand a hit by a similar-sized plane. There are many architects who have attested to the strength of the towers and the ability to withstand such damage without totally collapsing.

quote:
Two buildings of the same design has been hit by aircrafts of a similar size. Both had about the same amount of jet fuel injected into the building. Both fell.



Yes. But there is virtually no evidence of what happened in between. It was almost all shipped away or burried. The rest was contaminated by all the clean-up workers such that no conclusive forensic findings were possible.



quote:
Also, Building 7 collapsed but was NOT hit by a plane.

quote:
No, I understand it was hit by fire and a falling building.


No--it was the falling building.

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

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2006 :  11:54:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by filthy

Here we go, 'round again.....

I say that the whole thing was just a coincidence. I say that the airplanes were innocently flying along when God let forth a bean fart that diverted them into the towers, and elsewhere. The fart ignited from static electricity and started the fires, and the back draft brought the buildings down. All of them.

The rest is no more than a cover-up by Christian scoundrels trying to place the blame on Islamic idiots.








Actually, filth, there is as much evidence supporting your Bean Fart "Theory" as there is for the official story.

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

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2006 :  12:53:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

quote:
Originally posted by filthy

Here we go, 'round again.....

I say that the whole thing was just a coincidence. I say that the airplanes were innocently flying along when God let forth a bean fart that diverted them into the towers, and elsewhere. The fart ignited from static electricity and started the fires, and the back draft brought the buildings down. All of them.

The rest is no more than a cover-up by Christian scoundrels trying to place the blame on Islamic idiots.








Actually, filth, there is as much evidence supporting your Bean Fart "Theory" as there is for the official story.

And your conspiracy silliness.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2006 :  13:33:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by filthy

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

quote:
Originally posted by filthy

Here we go, 'round again.....

I say that the whole thing was just a coincidence. I say that the airplanes were innocently flying along when God let forth a bean fart that diverted them into the towers, and elsewhere. The fart ignited from static electricity and started the fires, and the back draft brought the buildings down. All of them.

The rest is no more than a cover-up by Christian scoundrels trying to place the blame on Islamic idiots.








Actually, filth, there is as much evidence supporting your Bean Fart "Theory" as there is for the official story.

And your conspiracy silliness.







No--because the CD Theory of collapse includes and accounts for observed (and recorded) characteristics of the collapse itself, as well as observed (and recorded) characteristics of the rubble pile. So while no evidence exists to the official story, your bean fart speculation or the Hoarta Hypothesis, evidence does exist for the CD Theory:
--quick onset of collapse
--total collapse
--near free-fall speed of collapse
--buildings fall straight down in spite of asymetric design and asymetric presence of fires.
--pulverization of much of the concrete in the building coupled with ejection of steel beams and total collapse.


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

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2006 :  13:58:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

--quick onset of collapse
No evidence that this would not happen in a non-CD collapse.
quote:
--total collapse
No evidence that this would not happen in a non-CD collapse.
quote:
--near free-fall speed of collapse
No evidence that this would not happen in a non-CD collapse.
quote:
--buildings fall straight down in spite of asymetric design and asymetric presence of fires.
This did not happen.
quote:
--pulverization of much of the concrete in the building coupled with ejection of steel beams and total collapse.
No evidence that this would not happen in a non-CD collapse.

- 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
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 0.66 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000