If their case is so strong.....

[PhantomWolf]

Why do 9/11 deniers have to distort the facts or outright ignore them?

Why can they never admit they might be wrong about something?

If their case is so strong, why do they fight tooth and nail over little things as if should they admit that they are wrong there, their whole movement will implode?

Take WTC for example. Repeatedly we are told that no steel framed buildings have ever falled due to fire. If this is so true, why does it matter how big the fire was, or where the fires were? If as the Deniers claim, fire can't make a steel building fall down, then why do they have to so verhemently deny that there was a big fire? It shouldn't matter if the fire was one room of 30 floors, if their argument that fire can make a steel building was true, big fire, little fire wouldn't make a difference, the argument should still hold. Do they argue that it was a small fire because they know in their heart of hearts that a big fire could have caused the collapse and so thus have to limit it to a small fire to keep their case?

Another point that is treated this way. If WTC 7 was still stable and unlikely to fall as they claim, why deny that the structural damge existed. They claim that the building can't have fallen by itself, so why argue tooth and nail over the damage that it had sustained? Again is it that they know that if it sustained that sort of damage then it could really have just collapsed and so refuse to admit that possiblity?

It's not just WTC 7 either. Time and time again they refuse to acknowledge that they could be wrong about any single point, regardless of the evidence and regardless of how minor the point. Why do they do it? Why do they make themselves look stupid by refusing to move on from points that have been repeatedly shown to be flat out wrong? Surely they must realise that just make their arguments weaker. Are they scared to let anything go because without it they don't have a case? Do they really realise that they're wrong in their claims but just won't admit it?

Why? I just don't get it. :confused:

[Brainster]

Because evidence is not evidence to a Truther. It's something that makes people say "Woo!" As such they are reluctant to give up any points. This drove me crazy with the LA lady at the AZ Denial of Accountability Conference. She came up with like 25 different factoids or questions and I shot every single one down, and she was ready with the 26th when I noted that she'd lost quite a bit of credibility with me at that point and would she please cut it out?

[chipmunk stew]

Why do 9/11 deniers have to distort the facts or outright ignore them?

Why can they never admit they might be wrong about something?

If their case is so strong, why do they fight tooth and nail over little things as if should they admit that they are wrong there, their whole movement will implode?

<snip>
I don't know, but I have a hypothesis. The overarching pattern in truther thinking is that they have a hunch that there's some nefarious truth lurking behind the facade of the official story, and if they can find a chink in the armor of that story, then the whole thing will fall apart and we'll have to start from scratch with a New Independent Investigation.

Such logic is, of course, absurd, but if you're working under the illusion that any theory is a house of cards, where each little piece is dependent on all the others to keep itself up, then the idea of conceding even minor arguments might seem very threatening.

[PhantomWolf]

Such logic is, of course, absurd, but if you're working under the illusion that any theory is a house of cards, where each little piece is dependent on all the others to keep itself up, then the idea of conceding even minor arguments might seem very threatening.

Actually this seems to come pretty close to how they act. I wonder if you don't have something here, that they do view all theories as just based on a number of single points and if you remove one, everything will just tumble down, not only for any "official story", but also their own.

This phenomona isn't unique to 9/12 deniers either, it seems to be a mindset for all CT's. It's like how the Apollo Hoax fruitcakes will not accept that you can't image stars on a photograph using daylight expousure settings, even when you show them picture after picture of non-Apollo space images of sunlit objects (planets, the ISS, the shuttle, comets, moons...) all without stars.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If their case is so strong, why do they fight tooth and nail over little things as if should they admit that they are wrong there, their whole movement will implode?
Probably. It seems like they're building failovers into their beliefs. If they can't sustain a certain point, they fall back to another one.

[Axiom_Blade]

This phenomona isn't unique to 9/12 deniers either, it seems to be a mindset for all CT's.

Don't forget the creationist/IDers trying to "prove" their case by finding chinks in the armor of evolutionary theory.

[twinstead]

Of course, many CT's are just A-holes. A-holes are impervious to reason.

[T.A.M.]

All evidence that the sane populous considers valid, the average truther considers to be faked, planted, or propaganda...thats all there is to it.

TAM:)

[babazaroni]

They attack the fire and structural damage because it is our arguments. If they can show our arguments are wrong, then they feel that shows that one of their theories must be correct. Which one really does not matter.

[PhantomWolf]

They attack the fire and structural damage because it is our arguments. If they can show our arguments are wrong, then they feel that shows that one of their theories must be correct. Which one really does not matter.

This still doesn't explain why they won't accept the overwhelming evidence when it is given to them, admit that , well okay so perhaps that thing isn't the smoking gun they thought it might be and they weren't right about it, but what about this smoking gun! They just refuse to ever admit that any part of their claims might actually be wrong to the point of totally ignoring anything that says they are. That doesn't make sense to me.

[jhunter1163]

I tend to agree with Chipmunk that Twoofers have a defective view about what theories are and how they are constructed/revised. Twoofers believe that a theory is constructed of a series of points of evidence and if any of these points are removed, the entire theory is invalid. It doesn't occur to them to modify their theory to not include the discredited piece of evidence.

Of course, it could also be that they realize that if they modify their theory to remove all the discredited pieces of evidence, they will have no theory. Maybe they don't want to start down that slippery slope.

[firecoins]

Ususally a theory starts with an hypthesis and uses observable facts to see if the hypthesis holds water. But since the hypthesis outright rejects clearly visible facts, they are left with speculation and distortions.

[Stellafane]

I myself think it's partially attributable to something I call the "Doink...doink...doink" theory. Let me explain:

A short time ago I attended a school talent show. During the evening, two different kids played the xylophone. Kid A played a song of his own composition; it was really complex, full of key changes, and had a difficult rhythm. At the end the audience gave him a rousing ovation. Kid B basically used the xylophone as a background percussion instrument while the rest of his class sang; he banged it three times very slowly, paused, repeated, waited a few minutes in silence, then played his three notes again. Doink...doink...doink. No one really noticed him.

For some reason, my daughter Ashley would rather die than say anything complimentary about Kid A. So after the concert, she very pointedly exclaims, "Wasn't Kid B great on the xylophone?" When I mentioned Kid A, she insisted that what Kid B played was far more complicated. When I asked her to explain her position, she finally stated "Hey, it's my opinion. And in my opinion, Kid B's song was more complicated than Kid A's." So I took the opportunity to instruct her that reality doesn't work like that. Yeah sure, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and all opinions deserve respect, yada yada. But some things simply aren't matters of opinion. In the real world, facts trump opinions every time. Thus a snappy, jazzy tune will always beat "doink...doink...doink," irrespective of opinions.

I think a good percentage of CT'ers are stuck in "doink...doink...doink" mode. They think reality is governed by opinions and points of view. Under such a system, the opinion of a well-informed expert who has studied all the facts bears no more weight than that of a 15 year old boy who's basing his views on wishful thinking and fantasy. It's like we're all debating some topic where facts and reality play no part, like whether Batman could kick Spiderman's ass. To twoofers, it's all indistiguishable from comic books and role-playing games.

The extreme example of that was that CT'er who came here and told us we were all government agents or something. Think of it: we know we're not agents, so you'd think there'd be absolutely no point in trying to convince us we were, but that didn't stop him. I was initially struck numb by the presumption, until I viewed it through the "doink...doink...doink" filter. I think this person honestly believed that his opinion was of equal validity to ours, even when the topic was ourselves!

So that's my latest theory in trying to explain at least one facet of why some twoofers do and say the things they do. They have yet to learn that the universe isn't all one big matter of opinion. As a consequence, they're still playing "doink...doink...doink" on the mental xylophone, while the rest of us are riffing on Mozart.

[Hokulele]

I tend to agree with Chipmunk that Twoofers have a defective view about what theories are and how they are constructed/revised. Twoofers believe that a theory is constructed of a series of points of evidence and if any of these points are removed, the entire theory is invalid. It doesn't occur to them to modify their theory to not include the discredited piece of evidence.

Of course, it could also be that they realize that if they modify their theory to remove all the discredited pieces of evidence, they will have no theory. Maybe they don't want to start down that slippery slope.

Ususally a theory starts with an hypthesis and uses observable facts to see if the hypthesis holds water. But since the hypthesis outright rejects clearly visible facts, they are left with speculation and distortions.


To make matters worse for the truth movement, science is even more complicated than that. Typically when a new hypothesis is put forward, scientists will focus on the null hypothesis first, and test the heck out of that. For example, "if Hypothesis A is not true, what would we expect to see?" People in the truth movement cannot bear to even think about their hypotheses (sp?) being untrue, so can never test the nulls, and can never progress.

[Yurebiz]

Excuse me, but truthers are not bound to a single story. Individual truthers may exploit and distort facts on their own, intentionally or by mistake.
If there's anyone who has to struggle to make their hypothesis seem concrete, it's the OCTists.
I turn that question right back at you: If your evidence is so overwhelming that Al Quaeda/19 Hijackers did it, why does the 9/11 Commission report has to go over limitless extents in omitting evidence?
My word is that both instances are to blame for this attitude. If you think either side is flawlessly right, then you're not being honest to yourself.

[Vincent Vega]

Excuse me, but truthers are not bound to a single story. Individual truthers may exploit and distort facts on their own, intentionally or by mistake.
If there's anyone who has to struggle to make their hypothesis seem concrete, it's the OCTists.
I turn that question right back at you: If your evidence is so overwhelming that Al Quaeda/19 Hijackers did it, why does the 9/11 Commission report has to go over limitless extents in omitting evidence?
My word is that both instances are to blame for this attitude. If you think either side is flawlessly right, then you're not being honest to yourself.

is flawlessly correct. Thats not the contention. The contention is that the EVIDENCE, or better put...lack thereof, supporting their 'inside job' theories is seriously flawed. While all actual evidence existing supports the 'official theory'.

[Yurebiz]

Evidence can be cherry picked, evidence can be omitted.
Evidence can be dumped away in some landfill or shipped to china.Evidence can be classified and put away from the public.
Whether you think there's enough undisclosed evidence supporting the official story (which is what, DNA samples and fireproof-passports?) or not, I don't care. This thread was arguing about the attitude taken by CTists to distort facts. All I'm saying is that the 9/11 Comission Report does the same in multiple cases mainly by omission.
Now please go ahead and tell me how the commission was great and unbiased, and all I'm saying is BS.

[Pardalis]

uu6pZ6BPSuo
aBa252lC4uA
LfuZFU39XKI
ighjUx7H03I

[fuelair]

Why do 9/11 deniers have to distort the facts or outright ignore them?

Why? I just don't get it. :confused:

Their primitive brains cannot manipulate actual data - it is not so much that they distort or ignore. It is that the volume of real data is beyond their intake/processing capabilities as a group - much less individually.

[Alt+F4]

All I'm saying is that the 9/11 Comission Report does the same in multiple cases mainly by omission.

I agree, for example the money trail. The 9/11 Commission estimated it cost from $400,000 to $500,000 to pull off 9/11 but they were unable to determine the origin of this money.

Why don't the CTers investigate something like that rather than all this nonsense about thermite, beam weapons and mini-nukes.

[T.A.M.]

Excuse me, but truthers are not bound to a single story. Individual truthers may exploit and distort facts on their own, intentionally or by mistake.

So the truthers are either intentionally deceptive or incompetent...I agree.


If there's anyone who has to struggle to make their hypothesis seem concrete, it's the OCTists.

Noone had to struggle with any aspect of the "offical" 9/11 account until paranoid morons started asking stupid pointless questions, and making evidenceless, factless accusations.


I turn that question right back at you: If your evidence is so overwhelming that Al Quaeda/19 Hijackers did it, why does the 9/11 Commission report has to go over limitless extents in omitting evidence?

Omission is a passive event, so they didnt have to "go over limitless extents" to do anything (what ever it is that your sentence means).

The omissions are irrelevent to all but the paranoid individuals who are convinced of an inside job. I don't see joe public claiming the commission was full crucial omissions.


My word is that both instances are to blame for this attitude. If you think either side is flawlessly right, then you're not being honest to yourself.

I will agree that there are problems in this area on both sides...nothing more.


Evidence can be cherry picked, evidence can be omitted.

You got that right. Welcome to truther tactics 101.



Evidence can be dumped away in some landfill or shipped to china.Evidence can be classified and put away from the public.

1. For the ten thousanth time, The "evidence" from GZ took months to tow away to the landfills, and remained there for sometime as well. The only ones complaining about the length of time the "evidence" was left at GZ are the truthers.

2. Explain to me the mentality the truthers have, that makes them think they are entitled to the investigative evidence from a criminal investigation?



Whether you think there's enough undisclosed evidence supporting the official story (which is what, DNA samples and fireproof-passports?) or not, I don't care. This thread was arguing about the attitude taken by CTists to distort facts. All I'm saying is that the 9/11 Comission Report does the same in multiple cases mainly by omission.

please explain to me how the commission DISTORTS FACTS through OMISSION.



Now please go ahead and tell me how the commission was great and unbiased, and all I'm saying is BS.

Who said the Commission was "great"? As far as "unbias" goes, I am not sure how you could make a committee any less bias. They were 5 REPs, 5 DEMs, approved by congress.

What bothers me is the arrogance of the truth movement that they are somehow in a better position, or more entitled to choose who should have been on the commission. Get over yourselves.

TAM:)

[MG1962]

I find the biggest problem is the lack of data. They try to take each incident in isolation rather than look for interconnection to build their case. Exampe the pyramids at Giza. Taken in isloation they are an inexplicable engineering feat. Taken in the context of 500 years of successes and failures shows they are the ultimate in their craft.

I am actually toying with Killtown over Shankesville, specificlly his disapearing tail. It is easy to say the lack of tail is a smoking gun. But taken as a whole, research must occure to show how often a tail section is recovered from a high speed nose first large body plane crash.

[Brainache]

....
Now please go ahead and tell me how the commission was great and unbiased, and all I'm saying is BS.

Yeah, but could Spiderman kick Batman's butt?

You first have to refute the science of the variuos reports before you can call BS. It isn't a matter of opinion. Read Stellafane's excellent "doink doink doink" post.

[pagan]

Why do 9/11 deniers have to distort the facts or outright ignore them?

Why can they never admit they might be wrong about something?

If their case is so strong, why do they fight tooth and nail over little things as if should they admit that they are wrong there, their whole movement will implode?

Take WTC for example. Repeatedly we are told that no steel framed buildings have ever falled due to fire. If this is so true, why does it matter how big the fire was, or where the fires were? If as the Deniers claim, fire can't make a steel building fall down, then why do they have to so verhemently deny that there was a big fire? It shouldn't matter if the fire was one room of 30 floors, if their argument that fire can make a steel building was true, big fire, little fire wouldn't make a difference, the argument should still hold. Do they argue that it was a small fire because they know in their heart of hearts that a big fire could have caused the collapse and so thus have to limit it to a small fire to keep their case?

Another point that is treated this way. If WTC 7 was still stable and unlikely to fall as they claim, why deny that the structural damge existed. They claim that the building can't have fallen by itself, so why argue tooth and nail over the damage that it had sustained? Again is it that they know that if it sustained that sort of damage then it could really have just collapsed and so refuse to admit that possiblity?

It's not just WTC 7 either. Time and time again they refuse to acknowledge that they could be wrong about any single point, regardless of the evidence and regardless of how minor the point. Why do they do it? Why do they make themselves look stupid by refusing to move on from points that have been repeatedly shown to be flat out wrong? Surely they must realise that just make their arguments weaker. Are they scared to let anything go because without it they don't have a case? Do they really realise that they're wrong in their claims but just won't admit it?

Why? I just don't get it. :confused:

Sure, no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. So, the arguments concerning the length and heat of the fires are not very important,

[TellyKNeasuss]

My 2 cents: They believe what they want to believe and are content to maintain their belief as long as they can cite anything to support it. Contrary evidence is meaningless because the existence of some evidence that supports them (no matter how small or dubious) proves that they must be right. This attitude, unfortunately, is quite common and is not confined to CT'ers.

[stateofgrace]

Sure, no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. So, the arguments concerning the length and heat of the fires are not very important,

Really ?

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2217/stories/20050826003602500.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/july/6/newsid_3036000/3036510.stm

Fuel, heat and oxygen,when combined,will bring down steel framed structures, so you have the following three options to argue your case.

1. The fires were not hot enough.
2. They were oxygen starved.
3. They had no fuel.

Take your pick, which one of the three above applies to your argument and please continue.

[Mince]

Sure, no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. So, the arguments concerning the length and heat of the fires are not very important,


Despite being wrong about previous buildings not collapsing due to fire, as stateofgrace elucidated above, the WTC buildings did not collapse due to fire.

[T.A.M.]

Sure, no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. So, the arguments concerning the length and heat of the fires are not very important,

Please restate your falsehood, with corrections that make it, at least for the most part correct...here, I will do it for you...

"Prior to 9/11, there is no written record of a steel framed skyscraper having ever completely collapsed solely due to fire."

Now that we have your little lie corrected, lets look at what NIST said caused the collapses (paraphrasing)...

(1) Severing of steel support columns secondary to impacts
(2) Removal of a majority (>60% estimated) of the "spray on" Fire Proofing from the steel via impacts.
(3) Intense multifloor fires initiated by the jet fuel, and intensified and prolonged via the office contents causing a decreased load bearing capacity of remaining structure.

Now Pagan, does that look like NIST is saying the WTCs collapsed solely due to fire? Has anyone here said the WTCs collapsed SOLELY due to fire?

Do you want to begin again?

TAM:)

[Architect]

Sure, no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. So, the arguments concerning the length and heat of the fires are not very important,


I can't decide if this is sarcasm or not. I hope it is. But if it's not, then please feel free to tell me whether or not you believe that failure of steel due to normal fire loadings is a recognised structural problem. :covereyes

And since I am actually a qualified architect, registered in the UK with the ARB and a chartered member of the RIBA, I'm afraid that my professional opinion does count for more than yours. :eek:

[Architect]

I think a good percentage of CT'ers are stuck in "doink...doink...doink" mode. They think reality is governed by opinions and points of view. Under such a system, the opinion of a well-informed expert who has studied all the facts bears no more weight than that of a 15 year old boy who's basing his views on wishful thinking and fantasy. It's like we're all debating some topic where facts and reality play no part, like whether Batman could kick Spiderman's ass. To twoofers, it's all indistiguishable from comic books and role-playing games.


I think that's a very good viewpoint, and one I'd probably agree with.

Those of us who are qualified specialists in whatever field (and we know from another thread that a good proportion of us are degree qualified in various fairly complex subjects) recognise (a) the level of knowledge required to meaningfully understand technical issues and (b) the need to seek input from said people in a professional context.

Put it an easier way. I'd like to think that, as an architect who had to study some structures at university level, I have a reasonable grasp of structural issues. However I also know that the input of a structural engineer is required, in particular for highly complex work such as tall structures.

So why would a troofer.....or anyone else for that matter....think that it's possible to exercise the same level of understanding as the engineer without the need to carry out the 5 years of university study normally required?!?

I sometimes wonder if they're autistic or something similar, you know. :boggled:

[fuelair]

I find the biggest problem is the lack of data. They try to take each incident in isolation rather than look for interconnection to build their case. Exampe the pyramids at Giza. Taken in isloation they are an inexplicable engineering feat. Taken in the context of 500 years of successes and failures shows they are the ultimate in their craft.

I am actually toying with Killtown over Shankesville, specificlly his disapearing tail. It is easy to say the lack of tail is a smoking gun. But taken as a whole, research must occure to show how often a tail section is recovered from a high speed nose first large body plane crash.

If kc had any honor, his tail would be hidden way up between his legs!

[Yurebiz]

TAM you are well aware of the contradictions and omissions yourself I'm sure. I'm not going to debate any of them because I'm tired of debating in this forum.

If you want to yet again go through some contradictions yourself or anyone else for that matter, I'd ask to go here http://patriotsquestion911.com/ and check out some quotes... of course theres many other truther sites which have similar resources against the 9/11 Comission Report but I find that one to be the most "neutral", if there even is such a thing...

Again what I'm saying is that the CTs may hold no water, but I find it dishonest to say that while defending such a flawed report by the appointed officials. If everyone here was really looking for the truth, the first step would be for each one to admit the discrepancies. But almost no one here ever went that far. Actually I have never seen anyone admit anything at all, in about roughly 6 months of lurking, except maybe you TAM, and oliver. Either you people are really the demi-gods of truth and perfectness, or you're completely biased and not skeptic at all. Clearly defending the one and only official story.

[pomeroo]

Evidence can be cherry picked, evidence can be omitted.
Evidence can be dumped away in some landfill or shipped to china.Evidence can be classified and put away from the public.
Whether you think there's enough undisclosed evidence supporting the official story (which is what, DNA samples and fireproof-passports?) or not, I don't care. This thread was arguing about the attitude taken by CTists to distort facts. All I'm saying is that the 9/11 Comission Report does the same in multiple cases mainly by omission.
Now please go ahead and tell me how the commission was great and unbiased, and all I'm saying is BS.



But, don't you see that this is exactly what rationalists complain about? If the fantasist critique of the mainstream account is valid, why tell so many lies? There are no fireproof passports, and nobody is claiming otherwise.

A random object that survived a plane crash wouldn't be random if its survival was expected. I'm saying that it never occurred to the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy to plant a passport because they would have considered it improbable that any such object would remain intact after all the things that happened to the plane Atta was on. Most of the personal items of the passengers on that flight were destroyed. Atta's passport was one of the few that survived. An unpredictable outcome, but it happened--deal with it.

[pomeroo]

Evidence can be cherry picked, evidence can be omitted.
Evidence can be dumped away in some landfill or shipped to china.Evidence can be classified and put away from the public.
Whether you think there's enough undisclosed evidence supporting the official story (which is what, DNA samples and fireproof-passports?) or not, I don't care. This thread was arguing about the attitude taken by CTists to distort facts. All I'm saying is that the 9/11 Comission Report does the same in multiple cases mainly by omission.
Now please go ahead and tell me how the commission was great and unbiased, and all I'm saying is BS.



But, don't you see that this is exactly what rationalists complain about? If the fantasist critique of the mainstream account is valid, why tell so many lies? There are no fireproof passports, and nobody is claiming otherwise.

A random object that survived a plane crash wouldn't be random if its survival was expected. I'm saying that it never occurred to the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy to plant a passport because they would have considered it improbable that any such object would remain intact after all the things that happened to the plane Atta was on. Most of the personal items of the passengers on that flight were destroyed. Atta's passport was one of the few that survived. An unpredictable outcome, but it happened--deal with it.

[gumboot]

Again what I'm saying is that the CTs may hold no water, but I find it dishonest to say that while defending such a flawed report by the appointed officials.



And herein lies the problem with the "official story" arguments.

It's all about the 9/11 commission report.

My "version" of what happened doesn't come from there. It comes from a wide variety of different sources.

And I'd be willing to bet the overwhelming majority of Conspiracy Theorists have NEVER READ THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT. Thus they cheerfully and blindly lump any story they don't like in with the "flawed report".

Ignorance at its best.

I don't defend the 9/11 Commission Report. I defend the real tangible evidence of what actually happened that day.

-Gumboot

[Dave Rogers]

I sometimes wonder if they're autistic or something similar, you know. :boggled:

I know lots of autistic people, including one of my sons, and I've never heard any of them supporting conspiracy theories. It's a heck of a lot easier to get a new idea into most of their heads than, say, truthseeker1234's or christophera's. Don't underestimate people with autistic spectrum disorders - a lot of them are very bright and sensible, just extremely weird.

Dave

[humingbrd]

Don't underestimate people with autistic spectrum disorders - a lot of them are very bright and sensible, just extremely weird.

Dave

Never truer words spoken. The Aspergers variety of austistic young people I know are frighteningly bright. Some of them might obsess on Startrek characters or Euler numbers, but they aren't gullible.

[munki?]

I would say that it has much to do with Confirmation Bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). Many of the truthers I've engaged in discussion also adhere to many other conspiracy theories: the US didn't land on the Moon, the JFK assassination, chem-trails, a far reaching clandestine influence associated with the Illuminati/Freemasons, etc. The notion of a conspiracy orchestrated by the US government is reasonable within their world view. And perhaps it's a little easier to deal with than the reality of very angry Islamic extremists waging war on the US. Fighting some imaginary online battle against the vaunted NWO with no real consequence (aside from a good thrashing in a forum debate) is perhaps an easier "reality" to deal with. It's like an mmorpg, without a subscription fee.

[T.A.M.]

I know lots of autistic people, including one of my sons, and I've never heard any of them supporting conspiracy theories. It's a heck of a lot easier to get a new idea into most of their heads than, say, truthseeker1234's or christophera's. Don't underestimate people with autistic spectrum disorders - a lot of them are very bright and sensible, just extremely weird.

Dave

Never truer words spoken. The Aspergers variety of austistic young people I know are frighteningly bright. Some of them might obsess on Startrek characters or Euler numbers, but they aren't gullible.

I agree. Aspergers is a very mild form of the disorder, and most with it are quite high functioning individuals. Autism does not reflect intelligence, or even wisdom, but is an illness that, to varying degrees, limits the persons ability to communicate by standard methods, to the rest of the world.

TAM:)

[PhantomWolf]

And I'd be willing to bet the overwhelming majority of Conspiracy Theorists have NEVER READ THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT. Thus they cheerfully and blindly lump any story they don't like in with the "flawed report".

The other problem I have with this is that a lot of the things the CT mob complain about and say the report didn't cover, or omitted were actual irrelevant to the report itself. They seem to think the the 9/11 Comission was charged with explaining everything about 9/11 and that the NIST reports were charged with explaining everything about the collapse so if something thwy deem important isn't in there they must have deliberately omitted it. This isn't so.

The 9/11 Commission merely brought together the vast number of inquires from all the other agencies, such as NORAD, the FAA, the FBI and so forth in a way in which those results could be collated so as to figure out what went wrong and how to prevent it happening again. It wasn't to determine who did it, the FBI report had that bit. It wasn't to figure out whether the planes really existed, if bombs went off in the basement, or if NORAD was stood down, it was to determine how the response to the events of 9/11 could have been improved and what things lead to those charged with the country's security being unable to react in time, then to offer suggestions on how that could all be improved.

In the same way the NIST report is not a report dealing with every little thing that occured doing the crashes and collapses. It is a report that deals with locating the cause of the collapse, and then figuring out probable ways to prevent it occuring in the future. They weren't there to deal with the collapse itself, or what happened in the pile afterwards, just to figure out why the building collapsed and how to stop it reaccuring in the future.

[gumboot]

The other problem I have with this is that a lot of the things the CT mob complain about and say the report didn't cover, or omitted were actual irrelevant to the report itself. They seem to think the the 9/11 Comission was charged with explaining everything about 9/11 and that the NIST reports were charged with explaining everything about the collapse so if something thwy deem important isn't in there they must have deliberately omitted it. This isn't so.

The 9/11 Commission merely brought together the vast number of inquires from all the other agencies, such as NORAD, the FAA, the FBI and so forth in a way in which those results could be collated so as to figure out what went wrong and how to prevent it happening again. It wasn't to determine who did it, the FBI report had that bit. It wasn't to figure out whether the planes really existed, if bombs went off in the basement, or if NORAD was stood down, it was to determine how the response to the events of 9/11 could have been improved and what things lead to those charged with the country's security being unable to react in time, then to offer suggestions on how that could all be improved.

In the same way the NIST report is not a report dealing with every little thing that occured doing the crashes and collapses. It is a report that deals with locating the cause of the collapse, and then figuring out probable ways to prevent it occuring in the future. They weren't there to deal with the collapse itself, or what happened in the pile afterwards, just to figure out why the building collapsed and how to stop it reaccuring in the future.



Excellent summary...

That is indeed one aspect of the problem with these reports - the CTers seem to think they were intentionally and specifically established to address all of their theories. They weren't. They had very specific mandates.

-Gumboot

[Yurebiz]

And herein lies the problem with the "official story" arguments.

It's all about the 9/11 commission report.

My "version" of what happened doesn't come from there. It comes from a wide variety of different sources.

And I'd be willing to bet the overwhelming majority of Conspiracy Theorists have NEVER READ THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT. Thus they cheerfully and blindly lump any story they don't like in with the "flawed report".

Ignorance at its best.

I don't defend the 9/11 Commission Report. I defend the real tangible evidence of what actually happened that day.

-Gumboot

The other problem I have with this is that a lot of the things the CT mob complain about and say the report didn't cover, or omitted were actual irrelevant to the report itself. They seem to think the the 9/11 Comission was charged with explaining everything about 9/11 and that the NIST reports were charged with explaining everything about the collapse so if something thwy deem important isn't in there they must have deliberately omitted it. This isn't so.

The 9/11 Commission merely brought together the vast number of inquires from all the other agencies, such as NORAD, the FAA, the FBI and so forth in a way in which those results could be collated so as to figure out what went wrong and how to prevent it happening again. It wasn't to determine who did it, the FBI report had that bit. It wasn't to figure out whether the planes really existed, if bombs went off in the basement, or if NORAD was stood down, it was to determine how the response to the events of 9/11 could have been improved and what things lead to those charged with the country's security being unable to react in time, then to offer suggestions on how that could all be improved.

In the same way the NIST report is not a report dealing with every little thing that occured doing the crashes and collapses. It is a report that deals with locating the cause of the collapse, and then figuring out probable ways to prevent it occuring in the future. They weren't there to deal with the collapse itself, or what happened in the pile afterwards, just to figure out why the building collapsed and how to stop it reaccuring in the future.

For crying out loud. The 9/11 Commission Report IS all you have.
It is not one out of many other interpretations given by the government.
It is the one and only document, produced by the request of many 9/11 victim's families, that was supposed to explain all surrounding events in that day...

To say that it's nothing is such a lie. It's such a lie, because, along with the NIST, it's all you have to defend the hypothesis of 19 hijackers.

When truthers come here and ask you for evidence supporting the official story, what do you say?
"Well, go read the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports... lawl"

Then, when it's time for accountability, and to admit that the USG hasn't
fulfilled the requests, yo go around with sidestepping and say "Oh, but why, they didn't need to investigate the money trail..."
"Oh but why, they didn't need to investigate the wargames..."
"Or Cheney's timeline..."
"Or Norad's timeline..."
Or anything relevant, for that matter.

This is simply ridiculous. Will you people ever stand up like men and admit that "My congress has failed me", or at least "They were really wrong in a couple instances". Even if it means you still believing it WAS those 19 terrorists, when are you at least going to admit the 9/11 Commission was a WHITEWASH? Having their own commission members saying it was biased is not enough for you, is it?

(On a side note, 'Having Greening saying NIST is impartial isn't enough for you, is it?')

I bet that even if Congress itself someday vote for a new investigation, you'll say it wasn't necessary, and will rise against it. As my poll suggests...

[Pardalis]

uu6pZ6BPSuo
aBa252lC4uA
LfuZFU39XKI
ighjUx7H03I

[gumboot]

For crying out loud. The 9/11 Commission Report IS all you have.


So how come I know so much about 9/11? None of my information has come from the 9/11 Commission Report.





It is not one out of many other interpretations given by the government.
It is the one and only document, produced by the request of many 9/11 victim's families, that was supposed to explain all surrounding events in that day...


The purpose of the commission was to determine what, if any, security failures allowed 9/11 to occur, and what could be done to address those failings.




To say that it's nothing is such a lie. It's such a lie, because, along with the NIST, it's all you have to defend the hypothesis of 19 hijackers.


Nonsense. My evidence is the actual tangible evidence of what happened. Not a report. Eyewitness testimony. Video. Audio recordings. Agency reports from the NTSB, FEMA and NIST. Criminal investigations involving thousands of people. DNA testing... the list goes on. The 9/11 Commission Report does not appear in that list.




When truthers come here and ask you for evidence supporting the official story, what do you say?
"Well, go read the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports... lawl"


I have never once directed a Conspiracy Theorist to read the 9/11 Commission Report as evidence of the "official story". Retract your lie or provide evidence.




Then, when it's time for accountability, and to admit that the USG hasn't
fulfilled the requests

What requests?






, yo go around with sidestepping and say "Oh, but why, they didn't need to investigate the money trail..."
"Oh but why, they didn't need to investigate the wargames..."
"Or Cheney's timeline..."
"Or Norad's timeline..."
Or anything relevant, for that matter.


Everything I know about the above topics, I know independent of the Commission Report. As far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant.





This is simply ridiculous. Will you people ever stand up like men and admit that "My congress has failed me"


Not my congress.





or at least "They were really wrong in a couple instances". Even if it means you still believing it WAS those 19 terrorists, when are you at least going to admit the 9/11 Commission was a WHITEWASH? Having their own commission members saying it was biased is not enough for you, is it?


Like I said, the Commission Report is irrelevant. It has no bearing on my understanding of what happened on 9/11.




I bet that even if Congress itself someday vote for a new investigation, you'll say it wasn't necessary, and will rise against it. As my poll suggests...


I couldn't care less what the American Congress does with American money. They can go put the entire federal budget on Lucky Jack to win, at 12:1 for all I care.

-Gumboot

[PhantomWolf]

Heh, about all I can add is a "what he said" as Gumbooty pretty much covered everything I would have, except I don't think I would have thought of the Lucky Jack comment, I'd have said something like "I couldn't care less what the American Congress does with American money. They can blow the entire federal budget buying Taco Bell for all I care."

[gumboot]

Heh, about all I can add is a "what he said" as Gumbooty pretty much covered everything I would have, except I don't think I would have thought of the Lucky Jack comment, I'd have said something like "I couldn't care less what the American Congress does with American money. They can blow the entire federal budget buying Taco Bell for all I care."



There's just something that appeals about the idea of the entire Federal Budget being placed as a bet on a horse...

-Gumboot

[PhantomWolf]

There's just something that appeals about the idea of the entire Federal Budget being placed as a bet on a horse...

Hehe. I can just see it, including Bush cheering on the wrong one!

[gumboot]

Hehe. I can just see it, including Bush cheering on the wrong one!


I am just imagining a hugely convoluted film plot with gangsters and drugged horses and all sorts... and Bush the admin patsy, bets on the wrong horse.

There is also a gal in a red dress.

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

I could also add that whenever people tell twoofers to go read the NIST Report and 9/11 Commission, it's more about everyone being on the same page and knowing what we are talking about.

Most twoofers haven't read any of the official reports and claim they're whitewash. Reading them is the least they could do to engage in a conversation about 9/11.

[Redtail]

Sure, no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire. So, the arguments concerning the length and heat of the fires are not very important,

Ok IMO this is the most bizzare of truther arguments. Why do they think the only damage came from fire? Do they think that the Planes hitting WTC 1&2 and tons of debris hitting WTC7 will be forgotten if they ignore it?

[gumboot]

Ok IMO this is the truther argument that get's me. Why do they think the only damage came from fire? Do they think that the Planes hitting WTC 1&2 and tons of debris hitting WTC7 will be forgotten if they ignore it?


The claim that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire isn't even true...

-Gumboot

[Redtail]

The claim that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire isn't even true...

-Gumboot

I know. It's just that they act as if the buildings caught on fire by some mysterious... fire breathing chipmunks.

[gumboot]

Their theories are full of things like that, where they totally ignore huge gaping aspects of reality and present a cardboard cut out version, then present their claims against this fake backdrop.

-Gumboot

[AZCat]

The claim that no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire isn't even true...

-Gumboot

That's because they don't mean "no steel framed building". They mean (or will when they have to move the goalposts) "no modern steel framed building built in a country that cares about building codes with the steel protected by modern fire protection methods".

[gumboot]

That's because they don't mean "no steel framed building". They mean (or will when they have to move the goalposts) "no modern steel framed building built in a country that cares about building codes with the steel protected by modern fire protection methods".



Don't forget they usually move the goal posts to "steel framed high rise office building". One must ask, how many steel framed high rise office buildings fires have there actually EVER been? I'd imagine they're exceedingly rare.

-Gumboot

[AZCat]

Don't forget they usually move the goal posts to "steel framed high rise office building". One must ask, how many steel framed high rise office buildings fires have there actually EVER been? I'd imagine they're exceedingly rare.

-Gumboot

There have probably been more than you think. Let's clarify what a "high rise" is, first. IIRC the codes demarcate high rises from other buildings by the height of the highest occupied floor - if it is above 75', the building is a "high rise". Fires occur pretty frequently, but the strongest determiner of severity is whether the building has a fire sprinkler system. Most high rises built prior to 1975 don't have them, while most (if not all) built after 1975 do.

To partially answer your question, the USA racked up 7,300 fires in high rise buildings in 2002, with 15 associated civilian deaths (per John Hall at the NFPA). I'll get better statistics when I'm at work tomorrow.

[gumboot]

To partially answer your question, the USA racked up 7,300 fires in high rise buildings in 2002, with 15 associated civilian deaths (per John Hall at the NFPA). I'll get better statistics when I'm at work tomorrow.



Yeah but consider when they say "high rise" they mean "skyscraper". And how many of those 7,300 fires were in buildings with 100% steel frames (no concrete) and were office buildings (from my understanding the vast majority of high-rise fires are apartment buildings).

-Gumboot

[AZCat]

Yeah but consider when they say "high rise" they mean "skyscraper". And how many of those 7,300 fires were in buildings with 100% steel frames (no concrete) and were office buildings (from my understanding the vast majority of high-rise fires are apartment buildings).

-Gumboot

I don't know - I'll look tomorrow at work. I may not be able to find out about the structures of the buildings or the heights but I will be able to find out the various occupancy types and the number of fires for each.

[Orphia Nay]

Such logic is, of course, absurd, but if you're working under the illusion that any theory is a house of cards, where each little piece is dependent on all the others to keep itself up, then the idea of conceding even minor arguments might seem very threatening.

Actually this seems to come pretty close to how they act. I wonder if you don't have something here, that they do view all theories as just based on a number of single points and if you remove one, everything will just tumble down, not only for any "official story", but also their own.

I tend to agree with Chipmunk that Twoofers have a defective view about what theories are and how they are constructed/revised. Twoofers believe that a theory is constructed of a series of points of evidence and if any of these points are removed, the entire theory is invalid. It doesn't occur to them to modify their theory to not include the discredited piece of evidence.

Of course, it could also be that they realize that if they modify their theory to remove all the discredited pieces of evidence, they will have no theory. Maybe they don't want to start down that slippery slope.

Great points, chipmunk PhantomWolf and jhunter.

Also, bear in mind that the quality of their 'evidence' is terribly poor (it being based on assumptions, speculation, bad science, outright error or lies, etc). If they admit that one piece of evidence is based on faulty logic, the similar standards of the other pieces are shown to be so low that their 'massive evidence, total evidence' instantly drops to zero.

Thus they keep evading admission of errors, and changing the subject, and grasping at any straw they can grab, until hopefully they see they are backed into a corner made of their own fallacious reasoning, where reality is the only way out.



... As a consequence, they're still playing "doink...doink...doink" on the mental xylophone, while the rest of us are riffing on Mozart.


Very nice analogy, Stellafane.

[Architect]

For crying out loud. The 9/11 Commission Report IS all you have.


Really? What's your response to the Sheffield and Edinburgh University papers? Or the Arup report?

And I mean a proper technical response.

[chipmunk stew]

I know. It's just that they act as if the buildings caught on fire by some mysterious... fire breathing chipmunks.

You were saying...?

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/firebreathing_chipmunk.jpg

[T.A.M.]

Yurebiz:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/CollapseoftheWorldTradeCenterTowersRev1.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/STRUCTURE/gene_corley.pdf

For starters. Not saying everything in all the papers is right, but we use a fair bit more than just NIST.

TAM:)

[westprog]

Yurebiz:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/CollapseoftheWorldTradeCenterTowersRev1.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/STRUCTURE/gene_corley.pdf

For starters. Not saying everything in all the papers is right, but we use a fair bit more than just NIST.

TAM:)

Most conspiracy thinking can be debunked by anyone who has a reasonable level of intelligence and the ability to think clearly.

When Godsend, for example, claims that WTC7 was an obvious controlled demolition because the building fell down, most people can see the flaws in his argument. They don't need to battle his "ideas" with detailed physical analysis because they don't require that level of investigation. That's where the vast majority of conspiracy thinking comes from. "This sorta looks like..." "No way could..." I just don't believe..."

[Yurebiz]

Explain to me why hasn't congress bothered to assemble all the paperwork in a single report properly.
Explain to me why, instead, they give away a partial summary of what could be the official story.

Explain to me why you people choose to defend such story at all costs even though the main report released by the USG is admittedly biased.

If I could earn 1 cent for each circular argument I read in this forum, I'd be quite rich. Um. About a dozen dollars richer at least.

You agree with me the 9/11 Commission Report is flawed? Well, then why don't I see you people pushing for a new commission? No one at all.

All I see here is smearing the truth movement, while keeping yourselves in the high horse. Whenever it's time for accountability, or to consider alternative possibilities, you hide behind whatever disjunct report you consider to be the truth. Of course, because if specialists or an agency said so, it must be true.

Of course, since NORAD was wrong 3 times, their last timeline must be true.
Of course, Dick Cheney was proven wrong and contradicted himself, but he did his job alright.
Of course, After so many different explanations for the collapse of the towers, the NIST must be right, especially since they don't explain molten steel, nor the actual collapse, plus extrapolating temperature inputs in their computer simulations.
Of course, the 9/11 Commission omitted some things, but it's all irrelevant.
That's irrelevant, you say.
The 9/11 Commission report is irrelevant.
Ooooookey dokey.

I'm getting more and more disgusted of this.

[AZCat]

Yeah but consider when they say "high rise" they mean "skyscraper". And how many of those 7,300 fires were in buildings with 100% steel frames (no concrete) and were office buildings (from my understanding the vast majority of high-rise fires are apartment buildings).

-Gumboot

Okay, I've some information. It's not perfect because the report I found doesn't give the hard numbers, only percentages, but I think it will give us an idea.

The NFPA report (High Rise Building Fires, NFPA 8/05) has four classes of buildings they study: Apartments, Hotel/Motels, Hospitals and Offices (there are some structures that don't fall in these categories, obviously). The approximate numbers are below (I had to work backwards from the percentages):

USA 1999-2002 Fire Statistics

Total Fires (for the four classes)
Apartment = 31,900
Hotel/Motel = 3,300
Hospital = 2,200
Office = 1,700
Total = 39,100

High-Rise (7+ stories)
Apartment = ~2,770
Hotel = ~625
Hospital = ~515
Office = ~160
Total = 4000

Skyscraper (31+ stories)
Apartment = ~220
Hotel = ~45
Hospital = ~90
Office = ~25
Total = 380

FYI: The total number of fires for 1999-2002 is listed as 50,800 so there are approximately 11,700 fires in this period that do not fall in any of the four categories listed.


We can see from this that you were indeed correct - apartment fires make up the vast majority of both high rise and skyscraper fires (69% and 58% respectively).

[Pardalis]

:mghissyfit

uu6pZ6BPSuo
aBa252lC4uA
LfuZFU39XKI
ighjUx7H03I

[T.A.M.]

Explain to me why hasn't congress bothered to assemble all the paperwork in a single report properly.
Explain to me why, instead, they give away a partial summary of what could be the official story.

Explain to me why you people choose to defend such story at all costs even though the main report released by the USG is admittedly biased.

If I could earn 1 cent for each circular argument I read in this forum, I'd be quite rich. Um. About a dozen dollars richer at least.

You agree with me the 9/11 Commission Report is flawed? Well, then why don't I see you people pushing for a new commission? No one at all.

All I see here is smearing the truth movement, while keeping yourselves in the high horse. Whenever it's time for accountability, or to consider alternative possibilities, you hide behind whatever disjunct report you consider to be the truth. Of course, because if specialists or an agency said so, it must be true.

Of course, since NORAD was wrong 3 times, their last timeline must be true.
Of course, Dick Cheney was proven wrong and contradicted himself, but he did his job alright.
Of course, After so many different explanations for the collapse of the towers, the NIST must be right, especially since they don't explain molten steel, nor the actual collapse, plus extrapolating temperature inputs in their computer simulations.
Of course, the 9/11 Commission omitted some things, but it's all irrelevant.
That's irrelevant, you say.
The 9/11 Commission report is irrelevant.
Ooooookey dokey.

I'm getting more and more disgusted of this.

1. The 9/11 Commission Report has errors in it. They are not Fundamental errors with regards to the events of that day. They are for the most part minor, technical errors of little relevence to the overall story of that day.

2. Please provide one example of a circular argument here, along with your explanation of why it is circular.

3. If you expect to get a perfect report, or even a near perfect one, from any source, the commission, a group of foreign investigators/scientists...you are sadly mistaken.

4. the truth movement deserves to be smeared and here is why.
(i)The movement refuses to clean up its own house, allowing insane, totally unreasonable theories and arguements to represent it to the public.
(ii) It accuses without evidence or fact, people, hundreds of them, of murdr, either directly through their actions, or indirectly through "covering up".
(iii) It does so without remorse, without compassion, hating the USG so much that it will do what ever it takes, at all costs, to spread the lies.

5. The timelines were CORRECTED on a number of occasions. In general, that is the way things work. You have a timeline, you correct anomoles or mistakes, and come up with a more accurate version.

6. Where was Dick Cheney PROVEN WRONG? If he did contradict himself, than he sits with the majority of human beings who do so in their lifetime.

7. I am not going to go over the NIST issue again. If you don't like it, stomp on the floor stick out your tongue, and whine some more.

8. The 9/11 commission did ommit many things, none of which are relevent to anyone but the paranoid truthers who think it was an "inside job". The answers you seek, I can assure you, will not please you, because they do not indicate an inside job.

Now, why don't you stop whining and complaining like a child and Shaite or get off the pot. If you feel you have enough evidence to make a case, go do something with it. We'll be here waiting to see.

You think you are sick of the way we get on...you have no idea of how sick I am, and we are, of the insane, evidenceless, factless, illogical speculations and lies the truth movement brings up, over and over again.

TAM:mad:

[CurtC]

Their theories are full of things like that, where they totally ignore huge gaping aspects of reality and present a cardboard cut out version, then present their claims against this fake backdrop.
Yes, it's almost as if the CTs construct their own easy-to-defeat version of their nemesis, the official version, then rip that up and think they've accomplished something. Almost like making your own dummy out of something flimsy, say, straw, then claiming victory when you rip that "straw man" apart. Maybe we should even name this logical fallacy!

[KoihimeNakamura]

1. The 9/11 Commission Report has errors in it. They are not Fundamental errors with regards to the events of that day. They are for the most part minor, technical errors of little relevence to the overall story of that day.

2. Please provide one example of a circular argument here, along with your explanation of why it is circular.

3. If you expect to get a perfect report, or even a near perfect one, from any source, the commission, a group of foreign investigators/scientists...you are sadly mistaken.

4. the truth movement deserves to be smeared and here is why.
(i)The movement refuses to clean up its own house, allowing insane, totally unreasonable theories and arguements to represent it to the public.
(ii) It accuses without evidence or fact, people, hundreds of them, of murdr, either directly through their actions, or indirectly through "covering up".
(iii) It does so without remorse, without compassion, hating the USG so much that it will do what ever it takes, at all costs, to spread the lies.

5. The timelines were CORRECTED on a number of occasions. In general, that is the way things work. You have a timeline, you correct anomoles or mistakes, and come up with a more accurate version.

6. Where was Dick Cheney PROVEN WRONG? If he did contradict himself, than he sits with the majority of human beings who do so in their lifetime.

7. I am not going to go over the NIST issue again. If you don't like it, stomp on the floor stick out your tongue, and whine some more.

8. The 9/11 commission did ommit many things, none of which are relevent to anyone but the paranoid truthers who think it was an "inside job". The answers you seek, I can assure you, will not please you, because they do not indicate an inside job.

Now, why don't you stop whining and complaining like a child and Shaite or get off the pot. If you feel you have enough evidence to make a case, go do something with it. We'll be here waiting to see.

You think you are sick of the way we get on...you have no idea of how sick I am, and we are, of the insane, evidenceless, factless, illogical speculations and lies the truth movement brings up, over and over again.

TAM:mad:


Agreed. We can make a unified document, and in time, perhapse professors will to make it easier on history students. But that is more a subject of history.

[JimBenArm]

Yes, it's almost as if the CTs construct their own easy-to-defeat version of their nemesis, the official version, then rip that up and think they've accomplished something. Almost like making your own dummy out of something flimsy, say, straw, then claiming victory when you rip that "straw man" apart. Maybe we should even name this logical fallacy!
I know! The "Surrender Dorothy" fallacy!

No, that's not quite right...

[gumboot]

Yes, it's almost as if the CTs construct their own easy-to-defeat version of their nemesis, the official version, then rip that up and think they've accomplished something. Almost like making your own dummy out of something flimsy, say, straw, then claiming victory when you rip that "straw man" apart. Maybe we should even name this logical fallacy!

:p

-Gumboot

[AZCat]

Just as a comparison, I looked for information on New Zealand fires, but while your fire service (www.fire.org.nz) has a wealth of information on annual fires in New Zealand, it does not break down the data between high-rise and other fires.

[Yurebiz]

It's up to each one of us to consider how irrelevant those mistakes are TAM as I've always said.
Former members of the commission itself say it was an outrage.
If you think the omissions and lack of further investigations was really nothing, I beg to differ, but I can't ever change your mind.
I can't make you people see what you don't want to see.

There was a cover-up. One can say it was ignorance. One can say it was on purpose.
What can you bring to the table that may trump my opinion?

Nothing.

There was no follow up to the commission report.

There was no follow up for the investigations

Dick Cheney was not further investigated

NORAD was not further investigated

Are we to take their words at face value? And refuse a new investigation? I find this ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is this stance to bash us as conspiracy theorists. Simply ridiculous.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Go on that website, look into the quotes, and figure out by yourself yet again if the problems in the 9/11 Commission reports are really irrelevant.

TAM I respect you truthfully. But in the case of believing conspiracy on 9/11, I'm far beyond the point of recovery, if congress doesn't promote a new investigation. If a real criminal investigation on 9/11 won't ever be engaged and fully disclosed.

I don't get it how it came to this point in here, where questioning an impartial investigation is considered foolishness. Sheesh.

[T.A.M.]

It's up to each one of us to consider how irrelevant those mistakes are TAM as I've always said.
Former members of the commission itself say it was an outrage.
If you think the omissions and lack of further investigations was really nothing, I beg to differ, but I can't ever change your mind.
I can't make you people see what you don't want to see.

There was a cover-up. One can say it was ignorance. One can say it was on purpose.
What can you bring to the table that may trump my opinion?

Nothing.

There was no follow up to the commission report.

There was no follow up for the investigations

Dick Cheney was not further investigated

NORAD was not further investigated

Are we to take their words at face value? And refuse a new investigation? I find this ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is this stance to bash us as conspiracy theorists. Simply ridiculous.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Go on that website, look into the quotes, and figure out by yourself yet again if the problems in the 9/11 Commission reports are really irrelevant.

TAM I respect you truthfully. But in the case of believing conspiracy on 9/11, I'm far beyond the point of recovery, if congress doesn't promote a new investigation. If a real criminal investigation on 9/11 won't ever be engaged and fully disclosed.

I don't get it how it came to this point in here, where questioning an impartial investigation is considered foolishness. Sheesh.


Here is what I think about a new investigation:

1. If I felt that a new investigation would end this stupid, silly debate over what happened, and would allow your country, and the rest of the world to focus on the real enemies, the fundamentalist/extremists, whether they are christian or islam, I would likely agree it would be worth it. Unfortunately, based on how the truth movement responds to any evidence that does not agree with the inside job, I'd have to say that a new investigation would not convince a single truther of anything, and if fact would probably make them cry foul even louder.

2. If I thought there would be a lot more info gained, alot of questions gaining new answers(believe it or not, most of Griffins 115 ommissions, while perhaps not in the commission report, have been answered), I would likely agree another investigation is warranted. In my opinion, the questions posed by Griffin and others, have been answered, at least the important ones. Those that havent, for the most part, are not answered to the TRUTHERS SATISFACTION, and that is the key difference.

In the end, if you gain your new "investigation" (doubtful, as the only people the truthers would trust to do it dont exist), great...it is all about the REAL TRUTH...if it happens, I'll just wait for you all to come crying foul AGAIN.

TAM:)

[PhantomWolf]

Just as a comparison, I looked for information on New Zealand fires, but while your fire service (www.fire.org.nz) has a wealth of information on annual fires in New Zealand, it does not break down the data between high-rise and other fires.

That's because in New Zealand, anything over three stories is a skyscrapper. ;)

[gumboot]

Just as a comparison, I looked for information on New Zealand fires, but while your fire service (www.fire.org.nz) has a wealth of information on annual fires in New Zealand, it does not break down the data between high-rise and other fires.



The Statistics NZ website may or may not have more statistics...

Although as PhantomWolf points out... the tallest building in New Zealand (excluding the Sky Tower which is 50% aerial) is only 38 stories... so we don't have many Skyscrapers using the +31 storey definition. :)

You may also find the incidents are too low to make it worth it. There's only 4 million people, and our building safety codes are legendary.

Also we don't have the mentality of an open public government in the same way that the USA does (FOIA etc...). Just as an example, all federal copyright material in the US is open source where as crown copyright in New Zealand is upheld and using government owned copyright material without permission is illegal.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

That's because in New Zealand, anything over three stories is a skyscrapper. ;)

A skyscrapper, or as we call them, just "scrappers" of course being baby skyscrapers.

-Gumboot

[AZCat]

The Statistics NZ website may or may not have more statistics...

Although as PhantomWolf points out... the tallest building in New Zealand (excluding the Sky Tower which is 50% aerial) is only 38 stories... so we don't have many Skyscrapers using the +31 storey definition. :)

You may also find the incidents are too low to make it worth it. There's only 4 million people, and our building safety codes are legendary.

Also we don't have the mentality of an open public government in the same way that the USA does (FOIA etc...). Just as an example, all federal copyright material in the US is open source where as crown copyright in New Zealand is upheld and using government owned copyright material without permission is illegal.

-Gumboot


Okay. Probably no point, anyway - it's mostly an issue in the U.S. because of the pre-1975 non-sprinklered high rises (and the events of September 11th, of course). As the city of Chicago noted in their recent study of high rise building fire safety, we don't usually pay attention to these sort of things until something goes dreadfully wrong, then it's "chickens with their heads cut off" time.

[KoihimeNakamura]

It's up to each one of us to consider how irrelevant those mistakes are TAM as I've always said.
Former members of the commission itself say it was an outrage.
If you think the omissions and lack of further investigations was really nothing, I beg to differ, but I can't ever change your mind.
I can't make you people see what you don't want to see.

There was a cover-up. One can say it was ignorance. One can say it was on purpose.
What can you bring to the table that may trump my opinion?

Nothing.

There was no follow up to the commission report.

There was no follow up for the investigations

Dick Cheney was not further investigated

NORAD was not further investigated

Are we to take their words at face value? And refuse a new investigation? I find this ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is this stance to bash us as conspiracy theorists. Simply ridiculous.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Go on that website, look into the quotes, and figure out by yourself yet again if the problems in the 9/11 Commission reports are really irrelevant.

TAM I respect you truthfully. But in the case of believing conspiracy on 9/11, I'm far beyond the point of recovery, if congress doesn't promote a new investigation. If a real criminal investigation on 9/11 won't ever be engaged and fully disclosed.

I don't get it how it came to this point in here, where questioning an impartial investigation is considered foolishness. Sheesh.

That's because they have iether been answered or other sources back up the report. In the case of NORAD and Cheney, gumboot can talk about NORAD, and if the reports are true, then investigating them is off little use unless a major piece of evidence comes to light.

[CurtC]

duplicate

[CurtC]

I don't get it how it came to this point in here, where questioning an impartial investigation is considered foolishness. Sheesh.
I consider an investigation to address the CT concerns, along the same lines as spending tens of millions of dollars to investigate whether the towers were brought down by leprechauns setting little fires throughout the towers, and kicking the steel columns until they gave way. Why investigate something so silly? If you want to pay for it, fine, but please don't use my tax money.

[CurtC]

duplicate post

[Pardalis]

I guess it's pointless for me to post those Al Qaeda confession videos again?

[Gravy]

What can you bring to the table that may trump my opinion?

Nothing.


Never a truer truther truism was spoken.

But we'll put our facts against yours any day.

[PhantomWolf]

But we'll put our facts against yours any day.

Um... what facts? They don't have any, only a lot of lies, mistakes, half-truths and "but it looks like..."