Does anyone here believe the 9/11 story?

[tolman]

I'm still wondering what's supposed to be special about WW2, which bits have meaningful disagreement between consensus/averaged accounts from eyewitnesses and accounts from diligent historians, and who is forcing anyone to believe the eyewitnesses?

[bryan]

But if you didn't see it on TV, how can you even be sure you're seeing the same images as the rest of the world? You could be watching some crap cobbled together by a CTer.

Not surprising that you don't watch TV. If you have no grasp of reality and how the world really works, it must be a confusing and frightening experience.

Do you think the people at www.archive.org are CTers?

Welcome to the Archive

The Internet Archive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, is building a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form. Like a paper library, we provide free access to researchers, historians, scholars, and the general public.

Frightening!

[PaulW99]

Do you think the people at www.archive.org are CTers?



Frightening!

The Internet Archive is, as the name suggests, an archive. Amongst their treasures are movies of UFOs. So what is your point - you found it on the internet so it must be true? The NWO has no control over the internet?

Again, if you didn't even see the planes hit the tower on TV, then why do you think you know so much about it? I'll bet you didn't even read the newspaper the next day, too much disinformation in there.

[tolman]

bryan,

I'm still waiting for an explanation of how it's 'illogical' or 'paradoxical' or 'hypocritical' for me to make an educated guess as to what is probably the case, but to consider the possibility that I might be wrong.

[bryan]

The Internet Archive is, as the name suggests, an archive. Amongst their treasures are movies of UFOs. So what is your point - you found it on the internet so it must be true? The NWO has no control over the internet?

Maybe you should have pointed that out to BrianP when he posted 'evidence' in the form of a dreaded youtube video. As it happens, the youtube clip appears to be identical to the corresponding scene in the archives, but you couldn't be expected to know anything about that, since you prefer to ignore the video evidence and base your beliefs on a fading memory.

The amusing thing is it's usually the no-planers who suspect that some of the footage in the archives has been manipulated to hide evidence of fake planes.

Again, if you didn't even see the planes hit the tower on TV, then why do you think you know so much about it? I'll bet you didn't even read the newspaper the next day, too much disinformation in there.

How many more times do you want me to tell you?

[tolman]

How many more times do you want me to tell you?

Don't bother repeating yourself.

Instead, do something novel, and explain simply and clearly how it is hypocritical or illogical for a person to contemplate possible ways in which they may be wrong.

[bryan]

I'm perfectly at liberty to say that, being a nonspecialist, at the moment the NIST explanation seems adequate to me and I don't have any reason to doubt the integrity of the people involved.
Were it to be shown that the explanation was seriously inadequate, then that would suggest other possible explanations, one collection of which I have pointed out in order to show that your claim for demolition being the sole alternative is wrong.

Were it to be shown at some time in the future that aliens exist and had the technology in 2001 to cause a building to collapse in the same way as WTC7, then the 'aliens' explanation might be plausible. At the present time, you don't believe in aliens and you don't believe the NIST model is flawed, so 'aliens' and 'building failures' are not plausible alternatives for you, although they might be for people with a different world view. In your case, the 'building failures' explanation is even less plausible than the 'aliens' explanation, because your assumption that the NIST model is flawed directly contradicts your assumption that the NIST model is accurate when you defend the official version.

But they do have to knock the NIST down if they're claiming that in the Real World, the NIST actually is wrong, which is what you do claim.

For the moment we're trying to establish whether the alternatives are plausible or not.

If you're really too disturbed to understand people imagining situations without believing those situations actually exist in reality, your nurses should take your computer away.

You could imagine an infinite number of situations, but the situations have to be plausible and consistent with your previously-stated assumptions and world view.

If someone comes to me and says "This car just crashed -what caused it?" I could give all kinds of speculative explanations, each of which fitted with a different set of findings in reality "If the brakes don't work, that could be the cause, check to see if the suspension might have failed before the accident and caused it, a blowout might have caused the vehicle to swerve, etc"

Each of those explanations actually depends on the world being different, but that's no barrier to thinking/talking about all of them without necessarily prejudging the world.

Your speculative explanations for the car crash are not dependent on any assumptions, other than basic knowledge of how a car works. If you suspect a kangaroo may have jumped out in front of the car, it wouldn't make sense to suggest it may have been a reindeer, unless the crash happened near a zoo or something.

You're entirely mischaracterising my position again.

If *you* said "It is going to rain, so we'll have to do X" and I reply "But even if it does rain, we could do Y or Z", I haven't made any judgement at all about whether it will or won't rain, even if you have.
I haven't placed myself under the slightest obligation to predict the weather, or to defend or attack any particular weather forecast.
I've merely pointed out that you were wrong in claiming that doing X is the only possible outcome of rain.
You can't seriously try to defend your failed proposal that X is the only wet-weather activity by claiming that I don't think it's going to rain, so I have no right to comment.
Equally, you can't claim it's 'hypocritical' of me to speculate as to possible wet-weather activities if my best guess is that it's going to be dry. After all, part of being a grown-up is learning to think about what might happen if one's best guesses are wrong.

I'm not mischaracterising your position. It's you who gave an example that's totally irrelevant to the situation. In my analogy, the reason for believing we can or can't take part in certain activities depends on how much trust I have in the weather forecast. The reason it doesn't make sense to say: "We can't play cricket tomorrow because rain is forecast, but we can go to the beach, because the forecast is always wrong." is because that trust needs to be consistent in both assessments. Depending on my faith in the Met Office, what I could say is: a) we can do either, b) we can't do either, or c) we might be able to do either.

You either have faith in NIST or you don't. It's ludicrous to suggest they might fix their model to cover up sub-standard work by a construction company decades ago but they'd refuse to do the same for the people who pay their wages.

After all, part of being a grown-up is learning to think about what might happen if one's best guesses are wrong.

You're learning.

No, because the alternative explanation is merely one of the obvious explanations which would need to be considered in a hypothetical future world where the report had already been shown to be wrong.
In such a world, it seems perfectly plausible that there could have been imperfections in the building, whether the result of innocent design failures, or innocent/less innocent later problems.

If you wanted an assessment of the probability of building failures having contributed to the collapse in a world where the NIST report hadn't been shown to be wrong, it would clearly be lower than in a world where the report had been shown to be wrong, but you could obviously say exactly the same thing about any conspiracy theories.

To show your suggested alternative is plausible, you also need to suggest how it could be possible for design failures to lead to the collapse as seen in the videos. Considering the first column to give way was close to the east end of the building, what kind of building failures could cause all the inner columns to fail progressively over a period of six seconds then all the outer ones drop together in unison?

As I've said, my current position is that I expect the report is basically OK, and I remain prepared to be convinced otherwise, but that in no way prevents me from imagining a situation where the report had been shown to be seriously wrong.

Anyway, it's not up to me to defend the report, it's up to CTers to successfully attack it.
If there was a successful objective technical attack on it, it would make no difference whether I attempted to defend it or not.

On the other hand, if there was someone with no technical understanding trying to make a half-arsed attack on it and I pointed out where they were wrong, that would be less a case of me defending the report, much more one of me pointing out where someone's argument failed.

The report has already been attacked successfully. Nobody has even tried to explain how the outer columns on the east end of the buiding could remain standing while the inner columns collapsed progressively from east to west. It's not good enough to say: "It's all in the NIST report", "Read JE Gordon", or "Ask a structural engineer about stress propagation".

When you're provided with details, you choose to ignore them.

Everyone here sees that.

Could somebody repost the details? I think I blinked the first time.

[tolman]

Were it to be shown at some time in the future that aliens exist and had the technology in 2001 to cause a building to collapse in the same way as WTC7, then the 'aliens' explanation might be plausible. At the present time, you don't believe in aliens and you don't believe the NIST model is flawed, so 'aliens' and 'building failures' are not plausible alternatives for you, although they might be for people with a different world view. In your case, the 'building failures' explanation is even less plausible than the 'aliens' explanation, because your assumption that the NIST model is flawed directly contradicts your assumption that the NIST model is accurate when you defend the official version.

You try to claim that if the NIST is wrong, the only explanation is demolition. I point out that if the NIST is wrong, demolition isn't the only possibility.

Logically, whatever I currently think is the case, there are various mutually exclusive possibilities (and for the sake of argument, let's just deal with WTC7).

a) The NIST is basically right (collapse was by damage/fire alone)
b) The NIST is not basically right and a conspiracy demolished WTC7
c) The NIST is not basically right, and the collapse was due to damage/fire on an imperfectly designed/contructed building (imperfect for one of a number of reasons
d) The NIST is not basically right, and there's some other explanation which isn't b) or c)

The fact that I might currently happen to think a) is the likeliest explanation at the moment in no way prevents me from thinking about b), c), or d), or from considering how plausible b) and c) might seem in a hypothetical world where a) had been shown to be wrong (a world you seem very keen to have people wonder about).

You could imagine an infinite number of situations, but the situations have to be plausible and consistent with your previously-stated assumptions and world view.

OK.
My world view is that a number of explanations are possible, but at the moment, one of them seems the most likely explanation.
Within that world view, I'm perfectly at liberty to consider other possible explanations, even if, based on current information, I don't consider them likely to be correct, since I understand that new information could fundamentally change my view of the relative probabilities.

It would be extraordinarily stupid reasoning to start by considering a) more likely than b), c), or d), and then to rule out c) as being implausible even in a world where a) had been shown to be wrong merely because I currently consider c) to be less likely than a)

Your speculative explanations for the car crash are not dependent on any assumptions, other than basic knowledge of how a car works.

OK, since you've engaged with that analogy, what if I started off by having a 'world view' that suspension failure and brake failure were very rare, and in the absence of evidence were highly unlikely to have been the cause, whereas a blowout was the likeliest explanation. (and let's just pretend for the moment that statistics supported that view)

If you were claiming it must have been suspension failure, and you asked me to imagine a world in which evidence had shown that a blowout hadn't happened, you couldn't honestly claim I had no right to consider the possibility of brake failure because I hadn't thought that the likeliest explanation before the evidence was demonstrated, nor could you accuse me of being a hypocrite for considering the possibility of brake failure.

Had I been saying that it couldn't possibly have been brake failure, you might have some kind of case, but if all I'd been saying was that at the moment a blowout seemed the most plausible explanation, you wouldn't have.

I'm not mischaracterising your position...

...The reason it doesn't make sense to say: "We can't play cricket tomorrow because rain is forecast, but we can go to the beach, because the forecast is always wrong."

Which as you know is not remotely what I am saying, so you are deliberately mischaracterising my position.

All I am doing is pointing out that your argument that conspiracy demolition would be proved correct by someone clearly and objectively showing the NIST to be wrong is a failed argument.
The fact that you have to repeatedly wrongly accuse me of being illogical, hypocritical and dishonest in an attemopt to defend that failed argument suggests that you don't have anything you think might work better.

If you must have your cricket/beach analogy, it's you who is saying there is only one possible choice of what to do if the weather is wet, and me who is merely pointing out that there are obvious wet-weather alternatives.
If you were actually right, you'd argue your wet-weather-options case based purely on what was possible when it was raining, not try and attack me for currently having a different view on the likely weather, which has nothing to do with your argument.

You either have faith in NIST or you don't. It's ludicrous to suggest they might fix their model to cover up sub-standard work by a construction company decades ago but they'd refuse to do the same for the people who pay their wages.

You're being pathologically black-and-white again.

It's not a case of my necessarily claiming that they wouldn't possibly cover up mass murder of their fellow citizens, merely that if they could do that, then it's hardly unthinkable that they might cover up failings an a building which fell down with no-one inside.

I don't have to show that conspiracy is impossible in order to frustrate your argument, merely that there are alternatives which you're desperate to convince people don't exist.
You're the one saying Conspiracy Demolition is the only alternative to NIST being correct. I'm just pointing out there are other possibilities of at least arguably similar plausibility.

To show your suggested alternative is plausible, you also need to suggest how it could be possible for design failures to lead to the collapse as seen in the videos. Considering the first column to give way was close to the east end of the building, what kind of building failures could cause all the inner columns to fail progressively over a period of six seconds then all the outer ones drop together in unison?

That sounds like a job for someone with access to the appropriate modeling software, and an idea for what kinds of flaws could have existed unseen in a building like that.

Personally, I reckon that if the NIST were generally believed to be wrong, someone else would probably do the appropriate modelling, especially since it would be such an obvious possibility to consider if the NIST explanation did fail, and only so many experts might just accept demolition as the only possibility without doing some thinking.

The report has already been attacked successfully.

Well, then, all you need to do is sit back and wait, rather than go round making a tit of yourself falsely accusing people less stupid than you of dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Could somebody repost the details? I think I blinked the first time.

Look at the number of times I've recently explained to you how you're mis-stating my position, where you go on to just do the same thing again and again.
I'm pretty sure that everyone else here sees it. If you fail to, it's not their fault or mine.

[Croydon Bob]

Look at the number of times I've recently explained to you how you're mis-stating my position, where you go on to just do the same thing again and again.
I'm pretty sure that everyone else here sees it. If you fail to, it's not their fault or mine.

He's a pathetic loony living in a fantasy world with flesh eating reptiloids that eat children and can hypnotise people into seeing non-existent planes. He doesn't even seem to think that WW2 happened.

Why are you bothering to try to explain anything to him? We now have dozens of pages of proof that the nutter ignores facts and evidence and will only deal with fiction.

Although, if he really believed the stupidity that he's peddling, would he really come here and promote it? The reptiloids will come and get him for telling "the truth" won't they?

[skbuncks]

He's a pathetic loony living in a fantasy world with flesh eating reptiloids that eat children and can hypnotise people into seeing non-existent planes. He doesn't even seem to think that WW2 happened.

Why are you bothering to try to explain anything to him? We now have dozens of pages of proof that the nutter ignores facts and evidence and will only deal with fiction.

Although, if he really believed the stupidity that he's peddling, would he really come here and promote it? The reptiloids will come and get him for telling "the truth" won't they?

Dont worry, as a fully paid up shill I can confirm that they are aware of his presence and will deal with him in the due course of time in the appropriate manner.

skb

[PaulW99]

Dont worry, as a fully paid up shill I can confirm that they are aware of his presence and will deal with him in the due course of time in the appropriate manner.

skb

Speaking of which, did the NWO recently cut your expenses for manning the forums, or is it just me?

[PaulW99]

Maybe you should have pointed that out to BrianP when he posted 'evidence' in the form of a dreaded youtube video. As it happens, the youtube clip appears to be identical to the corresponding scene in the archives, but you couldn't be expected to know anything about that, since you prefer to ignore the video evidence and base your beliefs on a fading memory.

The amusing thing is it's usually the no-planers who suspect that some of the footage in the archives has been manipulated to hide evidence of fake planes.

How many more times do you want me to tell you?

Three more times.

At least I have a memory, you can't be sure if what you're seeing on youtube is anything like what was broadcast that day. This is as ridiculous as you telling the thousands of people who saw a plane crash into the WTC right in front of their very eyes that they were mistaken, that you on the other hand know exactly what they saw.

Can't you see how ridiculous you sound?

Seriously, I think you have a problem. You should seek psychiatric help. I mean it.

[Matt]

The report has already been attacked successfully. Nobody has even tried to explain how the outer columns on the east end of the buiding could remain standing while the inner columns collapsed progressively from east to west. It's not good enough to say: "It's all in the NIST report", "Read JE Gordon", or "Ask a structural engineer about stress propagation".

By "attacked" I can only assume that you mean you've been caught out lying that the perimiter columns all failed simultaneously in the NIST model, you've been caught lying saying that the NIST model said they all failed within half a second. You've been caught lying saying that the NIST model doesn't give details of the progression of the collapse and you've stated without any rationale whatsoever that the timings of the collapse is somehow a problem.

Therefore I guess that by "successfully" you mean that you managed to ignore or brush under the carpet the requests for clarification such as the one below.

Bryan,

The NIST physics model is not impossible to my mind. It violates neither the laws of physics nor the laws of probability. You can see the failure spread upwards and outwards as the loads redistribute forcing the lines of compressive thrust outside of the members designed to support them. In simple terms the failure spreads outwards from a slightly off centre point low down in the structure. As you say you would expect the failure to reach the external members on one side of the building before the others and indeed that's what the NIST model shows. The failures of the perimeter columns are close together in time, not within half a second of each other to my eye but I await your word on which time reference you think is the beginning of your half second and which is the end. It wouldn't really bother me if they were all within a half second. The failure has reached the columns by travelling a very similar distance. Why shouldn't that take a very similar time?

[bryan]

Speaking of which, did the NWO recently cut your expenses for manning the forums, or is it just me?

You won't be getting expenses. After failing your trial period you'll be out on your arse.

[bryan]

By "attacked" I can only assume that you mean you've been caught out lying that the perimiter columns all failed simultaneously in the NIST model, you've been caught lying saying that the NIST model said they all failed within half a second.

You've been caught lying saying that the NIST model doesn't give details of the progression of the collapse and you've stated without any rationale whatsoever that the timings of the collapse is somehow a problem.

Therefore I guess that by "successfully" you mean that you managed to ignore or brush under the carpet the requests for clarification such as the one below.

I wasn't lying when I said the columns failed "simultaneously". It was a genuine mistake and I took your correction on board and now I say "virtually simultaneously" instead. Don't forget, us two are the only ones here who are prepared to admit we were wrong.