Thread: Loose Change
View Single Post
Old 17th March 2006, 06:39 PM   #208
Hellbound
Abiogenic Spongiform
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 9,995
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
The evidence for an ACT (alternate conspiracy theory) is cumulative, as would be expected given the premise of a cover-up.
You realize that evidence is like multiplication, more than addition, right?

In other words, ten pieces of unlikely evidence doesn't make one piece of likely evidence. If you had ten unlikely evidences, any one of which proved conspiracy, then it'd be more like addition. However, all of your evidence must be true, plus more, to support your theory. That means it's like multiplication. If one piece falls, the entire thig crumbles. Or, .2+.2+.2+.2+.2 may equal one, but .2*.2*.2*.2*.2 equals .00032

Besides, we're still waiting for evidence of anything outside of what would be normal for a plane impact and fires.

Sure, you've offered a lot of speculation and post-hoc reasoning, but to borrow from forensics, you haven't met the proof:

You've offered no believable motive.
You haven't offered any method that has reliable evidence to back it up (so far, ONE person out of thousands in and around the buildings that claims to have heard a boom from the basement, with no real detail).
No evidence of anyone sneaking into the building to plant bombs.
No evidence of controlled demolition (in fact, evidecne runs counter to this idea, squibs especially)
No evidence of the free fall speeds you spout (easily disproven by the video, where debris falls faster than the building. Not freefall.)
No "melted steel"
No reason why an already damaged structure should not collapse (when plenty of reasons were offered, by experts in the field, as to why it should, and many suprised it lasted as long as it did)

By the way, those airline stock trades everyone talks about were fully investigated by the SEC. Most of the airline trades were traced back to certain predictions made by investment advisors prior to 9/11, not the government or related parties. The documents advising these trades gave solid market reasons for them, no indication of any sort of prior knowledge.
__________________
Science is like safety testing cars. You don't coddle a new theory; you slam it head-on into other theories. You sideswipe it, rear-end it, and roll it over at 60 mph. If it survives better than the old theory, it's good. And the way it fails, and under what conditions, gives you the information to make the next theory even better.

I reserve the right to be wrong.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top