IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 28th December 2013, 02:29 PM   #161
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Trying to show how improbable 9/11 has no purpose unless I can show the same events that happened on 9/11 can be explained away much more simply and much more probable.
I somehow doubt it, because there's a lot to explain that I suspect you're going to handwave away, including, just to mention one, the trails provided by companies in countries such as mine.

But I look forward to your unified explanation of all the events.

Or are you going to just focus on a few facts that you find "unlikely" and forget about the bulk of the rest?
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 02:33 PM   #162
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
As to the wave function, you are are correct. It collapsed. But this is what the whole inside job vs no inside job is all about. What we observe after the collapse -- say it collapsed right after the events of 9/11 -- is not the same. You see a dead cat , we see the cat is alive. But which is it? Hence, we are disputing this.
To continue the analogy, the cat was put in the box 12 years ago. We all do assume the cat has expired, you understand there is a probability attached to that and cling to that in stating the cat is alive.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 02:37 PM   #163
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
To continue the analogy, the cat was put in the box 12 years ago. We all do assume the cat has expired, you understand there is a probability attached to that and cling to that in stating the cat is alive.
In my experience cats live to about 14yrs OR 3765.5 road crossings - whichever comes first.






PS: Or 7yrs and one episode of "Getting Locked in Unused Shed"

Last edited by ozeco41; 28th December 2013 at 02:39 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 02:39 PM   #164
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
A creationist once informed me that evolution was so highly improbable , and that given God can do anything, God was the much simpler and more probable generator of all life.

David it seems is about to tell us that it is much more likely that an organization with vast power and wealth orchestrated a vast and complicated conspiracy to destroy a dozen buildings in lower Manhattan, one wing of the largest military office structure in the world, and shoot down a plane over Penn.

IOW invoke a God analogue.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 02:44 PM   #165
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
A creationist once informed me that evolution was so highly improbable , and that given God can do anything, God was the much simpler and more probable generator of all life.
And what process created God? Infinite regress. Don't tempt me - remember that I did my apprenticeship on the RichardDawkins Forum. Swatting creationist canards was bread and butter activity there.

BUT the "creationists" "truthers" analogy is very strong.

Last edited by ozeco41; 28th December 2013 at 02:46 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 02:45 PM   #166
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
This will help put things straight as to where I am coming from. For those of you that were not following the previous merged thread (re: CD and free fall) you would not have seen a post of mine; and those that were no doubt lost track of it. It was my fault it got lost in the shuffle.


"I reduced the point to the following:

Here is where I have come to with all that I have encountered here at JREF. As we go issue by issue you always have an explanation. No problem there. But it is always that every explanation that you provide is in terms of its being "possible."

Your side has to come up with a way to explain away every single thing regarding 9/11. And the list of things for you to explain goes on and on.

Of course that applies to the truther side as well. But we can explain everything in one sentence. It was an inside job/false flag event.
"
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 02:49 PM   #167
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
This will help put things straight as to where I am coming from. For those of you that were not following the previous merged thread (re: CD and free fall) you would not have seen a post of mine; and those that were no doubt lost track of it. It was my fault it got lost in the shuffle.


"I reduced the point to the following:

Here is where I have come to with all that I have encountered here at JREF. As we go issue by issue you always have an explanation. No problem there. But it is always that every explanation that you provide is in terms of its being "possible."

Your side has to come up with a way to explain away every single thing regarding 9/11. And the list of things for you to explain goes on and on.

Of course that applies to the truther side as well. But we can explain everything in one sentence. It was an inside job/false flag event.
"
You can keep repeating this all you want.

You still have to show how it's not just your opinion.

You do know the difference between opinion and fact?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 02:49 PM   #168
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
I will try to get out a post quickly that shows why I think I/we have a better explanation.
It will take a bit and I only have just over an hour before I have to leave the keypad. I'll do my best.
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 02:50 PM   #169
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
This will help put things straight as to where I am coming from. For those of you that were not following the previous merged thread (re: CD and free fall) you would not have seen a post of mine; and those that were no doubt lost track of it. It was my fault it got lost in the shuffle.


"I reduced the point to the following:

Here is where I have come to with all that I have encountered here at JREF. As we go issue by issue you always have an explanation. No problem there. But it is always that every explanation that you provide is in terms of its being "possible."

Your side has to come up with a way to explain away every single thing regarding 9/11. And the list of things for you to explain goes on and on.

Of course that applies to the truther side as well. But we can explain everything in one sentence. It was an inside job/false flag event.
"
We too can explain everything in one sentence.
al

Al Qada did it.

See how that works?

Perhaps another even easier one works better
" It was God's will"
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 02:51 PM   #170
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
I will try to get out a post quickly that shows why I think I/we have a better explanation.
It will take a bit and I only have just over an hour before I have to leave the keypad. I'll do my best.
David I appreciate your continuing courtesy..

HOWEVER
"We" are not looking for your reasons why you think you have a better explanation.

...we are asking for the explanation.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 02:52 PM   #171
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
...IOW invoke a God analogue.
OK - I admit it - you were right.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 02:53 PM   #172
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post


"I reduced the point to the following:

Here is where I have come to with all that I have encountered here at JREF. As we go issue by issue you always have an explanation. No problem there. But it is always that every explanation that you provide is in terms of its being "possible."

Your side has to come up with a way to explain away every single thing regarding 9/11. And the list of things for you to explain goes on and on.

Of course that applies to the truther side as well. But we can explain everything in one sentence. It was an inside job/false flag event.
"
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
To continue the analogy, the cat was put in the box 12 years ago. We all do assume the cat has expired, you understand there is a probability attached to that and cling to that in stating the cat is alive.
So the cat is still alive even though your declaring it alive is to vastly improbable.
Yes we all get that!
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 03:17 PM   #173
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
As to the wave function, you are are correct. It collapsed. But this is what the whole inside job vs no inside job is all about. What we observe after the collapse -- say it collapsed right after the events of 9/11 -- is not the same. You see a dead cat , we see the cat is alive. But which is it? Hence, we are disputing this.
We see lies from 911 truth, and 911 truth is unable to stop spreading lies.

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-H...80324-705.html

911 truth logic starts with...
Quote:
10. Two hijacker’s passports survived the aircraft crashes on 9/11 as well as a hijacker’s bandana.
By the time we get to your 10th point of woo on 911, it is improbable you used facts to form the conclusion.

Quote:
This alone virtually proves the Official Story to be a lie.
911 truth logic ends with a fantasy.

Can you show your math again for the 10th point of woo?
can save you
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 03:43 PM   #174
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
David I appreciate your continuing courtesy..

HOWEVER
"We" are not looking for your reasons why you think you have a better explanation.

...we are asking for the explanation.
^This.
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 03:44 PM   #175
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Now, beachnut, why would 911 truth choose to ignore the large amount of other personal effects of the occupants of the plane that were also found or the FACT that finding personal effects from airliner crash victims is extremely common.

Which reminds me, david never did list the airliner crashes in which personal effects of the occupants were not found.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 03:46 PM   #176
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
OK - I admit it - you were right.
Of course,,,, err, I mean thank you

See ya all in a day or two.... dinner time and wife time., neither of which are conducive to posting here.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 28th December 2013 at 03:49 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 03:57 PM   #177
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Post done. But, I copied and pasted from text doc. Nothing lines up. You will see what I mean. Stupid. I should have written it in response box. Damn.
See what I can do to make it readable.
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 03:59 PM   #178
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Looks pretty good after pasting in reply box. But preview everything smashed together.
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 04:17 PM   #179
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
This will help put things straight as to where I am coming from. For those of you that were not following the previous merged thread (re: CD and free fall) you would not have seen a post of mine; and those that were no doubt lost track of it. It was my fault it got lost in the shuffle.

Of course that applies to the truther side as well. But we can explain everything in one sentence. It was an inside job/false flag event.[/i]"
That is literally the single most ridiculous argument I have ever read.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 04:19 PM   #180
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
This list is not complete due to time considerations. I had started to list things off the top of my head that I remembered and I am sure there are at least quite a few more. (I have not been into this stuff to any significant degree for probably three years.)

Sorry for the format. Bolded are the explanations from the official story.
Inside job: "FF" = Planned out False Flag easy explanation.
You'll get the idea.
Each item is stated followed by BOLD (official story) then "FF"

(I do have to leave and will be gone for unknown # hours. Back when I can be.)


In no particular order:


Item JREF Me



-- AA11. “Vaporized airplane.” It’s possible FF

-- AA11. Few parts found It’s possible FF

-- Found passports It’s possible FF

-- H. Honjour flying It’s possible FF

-- Pentagon section hit:
- $2.3 Trillion.
- computers and “accountants”
with $2.3 T info.
- only section of many “reinforced”
It’s possible FF

-- FBI gathering video tapes
within minutes Possible reasonableexplanation. FF

-- no video of AA11 flying in and hitting Pent. Possible reasonable
explanation FF


-- Destruction of ATC audio tape
of controllers talking Possible reasonable
explanation FF

-- People told don’t fly 9/11 Possible reasonable FF
(LIHOP ALSO applies.

-- Drills making things confusing Coincidence FF
- false radar blips etc.
- sending fighters long way away.

-- Cheney “whipping head around
and ‘ course orders stand‘ Possible reasonable FF
explanation


-- UA 93 pristine hijacker Its possible FF
bandana

-- UA 93 no fuel in soil Its possible FF

-- Few black boxes found Its possible FF
all planes

-- WTC plane hit well of center Its possible FF
both collapses look ‘identical’

--UA 93 Crashed straight in Its possible FF
FDR showed 20 degree angle
Some wreckage 1-2 miles away

--AA 11. ‘vaporized plane’
all or nearly all DNA identified Its possible FF

--So many reports of explosions PPL lied or mistaken FF
yet dismissed/ignored

--seeing “molten steel” Not true FF

-- box cutters take all 4 crews out Possible FF

-- Planes “way over max operating” Its possible FF
(and by pilots no experience)

-- Plane parts -- no serial #’s Who cares? FF

--Steel shipped to China So what? FF

--Acars data well after crash So? FF

--Cell phone calls from crashed airplane So? FF

--Radar shows return after crash So? FF

--put options Even if, so what? FF

--sulfidized steel So? Possible FF

--CIA female told not to be in NYC She lied FF

--Warning from others countries ignored ? FF (LIHOP/MIHOP)

--Jennings/Hess Timeline we know FF
correct timeline,
you don’t

-- collapse explanations It’s possible FF
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 04:34 PM   #181
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
This list is not complete due to time considerations.
[non answer snipped]
You're hopeless. I bet you get this a lot, no one seems to listen to you and you can't figure out why.

Off to ignore you are.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 28th December 2013 at 04:43 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 04:37 PM   #182
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
As to the wave function, you are are correct. It collapsed. But this is what the whole inside job vs no inside job is all about. What we observe after the collapse -- say it collapsed right after the events of 9/11 -- is not the same. You see a dead cat , we see the cat is alive. But which is it? Hence, we are disputing this.
No, we have a dead cat. This is now a forensics exercise: how did the cat die?

Not all loose ends get tied up neatly in forensics: this is not a typical police procedural television drama.

The bulk of evidence points to a logical conclusion. If you don't agree, show how the evidence at hand better fits an alternate. You have to show how, no guesses, no could've, no might've.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 04:39 PM   #183
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
So I been thinking that recognition of the other side's perspective went without saying. That is to say, your side = the official story. My side = inside job. (More to come quickly).
More accurately and correctly I would say there are two sides, but they are;

Side supported by evidence and reality

Side that denies reality and offers no evidence, even when asked repeatedly to do so.

"Official story" is commonly used by Truthers as a derogatory term. In their world official = government and government = evil, therefore anything official is evil. If they label what actually happened on 9/11 as the official story they can automatically dismiss it, and by extension anyone who even seems to support it (since we are all paid government shills after all).

But one does not have to rely on anything "official" to understand that on 9/11/2001 terrorists with a long history of attacking the U.S. took two pages out of the standard terrorist playbook (hijackings and suicide bombings) and combined them in order to achieve their political goals. My suggestion is to get past the "official story" business so that it does not cloud your objectivity. There is only what happened, based on the evidence. Official or not official has nothing to do with it. If you have an explanation of what happened on 9/11 that you can prove on evidence, by all means bring it.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 04:49 PM   #184
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
No video of the plane hitting the pentagon! False flag!
Video of the plane hitting the south tower? False flag.
Plane vaporized? False flag
Vaporized plane's parts found? False flag.
Find passport? False flag!
Not find passport? False flag.
Can't find black boxes? False flag
Find black boxes? False flag.

*********** ridiculous.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 05:13 PM   #185
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
David you keep offering an EXPLANATION. All you have posted is a list of poorly defined items of FACT. Each with a pair of ALLEGATIONS as to someone's opposing opinions.

What you have to do - and preferably in this order - is:
1) State what you are claiming. For your first attempt try to keep it a single focussed and arguable claim. Try one of these:
(a) I claim that Controlled Demolition methods were used to ensure the Collapse of WTC1 and WTC 2; OR
(b) I claim that no plane crashed into the Pentagon.

2) The default narrative for 1)(a) says "No CD" And states the following facts as evidence for "No CD" - list say the most important 5 that you can either disprove OR outweigh with contrary evidence. You cannot avoid identifying the evidence against you - you have to overcome it and pretending that it doesn't exist will not work. As stage one stick to physical facts - not social aspects. What is claimed to have been the mechanism NOT "who dunnit". If you cannot prove that "it was done" THEN you certainly cannot prove "who dunnit". So prove it happened FIRST before tackling the "who dunnit".

3) I claim the following facts as evidence of CD - list your strongest points.

4) Then show how the total of your points of fact outweighs the facts of evidence underpinning the default explanation. Specifically - for example the default explanation for WTC collapses says "no evidence of demolition materials were found in the debris". So if you have to prove that statement wrong - give us the pictures or other evidence showing that there was demolition material in the debris. OR take the far harder track and demonstrate why the lack of evidence is not fatal to your claim. And do your homework - check that the evidence has not already been rebutted.

PAUSE HERE AND POST YOUR PROGRESS WORK
Get that far and we will check your progress. There is still a long way to go - but so far you are still standing stationary at the starting line, unsure what the race is and without any apparent clue as to the direction and route to take.

Here is a slightly different option:
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
This list is not complete due to time considerations. I had started to list things off the top of my head that I remembered and I am sure there are at least quite a few more.
There are many more BUT all they are is a list of asserted facts - poorly defined. Zero reasoning to show why they matter.

By all means pick ONE of them and explain:
P) why it matters; AND
Q) why the evidence you rely on is stronger that the evidence for the default explanation.

So you may as well follow the simple sequence I outlined above BUT using your facts.

And state up front what you are trying to claim or prove....otherwise the material is literally aimless.

Start with one simple technical building block - don't try the truther trick of "It was an inside job" --- without defining "It".

If you cannot show that the plane was not inside the Pentagon THEN all the alphabet soup of acronyms from P4T is pointless evasion.

If you cannot prove CD at WTC then all the "who dunnit" for CD is pointless.

So start with the technical building blocks...they are - they must be - the foundations.



PS OK -- [EndArguingYourCase101]

Last edited by ozeco41; 28th December 2013 at 05:17 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 05:18 PM   #186
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,214
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- no video of AA11 flying in and hitting Pent.Possible reasonable
explanation FF

I wouldn't expect any video of AA11 hitting the Pentagon, or are you going with the "single plane" theory
Reactor drone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 05:24 PM   #187
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
There are many more BUT all they are is a list of asserted facts - poorly defined. Zero reasoning to show why they matter.
Beg to disagree. Many of them are not facts. I'd call them claims.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 05:26 PM   #188
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Liberal misuse of the word "Vaporized" for a plane that did not vaporize.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 05:40 PM   #189
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Beg to disagree. Many of them are not facts. I'd call them claims.
Be my guest.

EDIT: ooops - gotcha

On re-reading I think I see that you are using "fact" to mean "true fact" - I wasn't - I was being legal - "fact" does not imply "true fact" - when I said that he "asserted" them I was not saying anything either way as to their truth or falsity. Merely identifying them as items of fact - and, at this stage, he presents them bereft of any validation OR reasoning. His burden of proof to prove them - and not for me to pre-empt his proof OR lack of proof.

Structurally I wanted to keep "claim" for the outcome and none of his "asserted facts" are claims of "outcomes" - rather they are potential building blocks of factual evidence to support a higher level claim. Which claim he has not yet stated.

Last edited by ozeco41; 28th December 2013 at 05:47 PM. Reason: changed to better match what pgimeno was saying
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 05:43 PM   #190
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
No video of the plane hitting the pentagon! False flag!
Video of the plane hitting the south tower? False flag.
Plane vaporized? False flag
Vaporized plane's parts found? False flag.
Those two are clearly in his list. It should put in black and white his bias analyzing the evidence.

And hopefully give him a clue on why we got just one combination of the zillions of possible ways that things could have happened, and how it is of no statistic relevance.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 05:58 PM   #191
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,218
"FF" isn't an answer.

"FF" isn't evidence. You need evidence of HOW things were planted / destroyed / coordinated. These will not be a two-word answer.

The truther/creationist analogy is very apt.

"FF" = "God did it".

Orphia Nay is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 05:59 PM   #192
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
I have questions too:

What are the odds some secret-squirrel cabal stages a hijacking to drive the US into a war, but doesn't use hijackers from the countries they want to invade?

Why not use more planes to hit more targets?

Why isn't crashing an airplane enough? Why rig the buildings to collapse?

What are the odds none of the thousands of professionals who worked at Ground Zero never saw evidence of CD? What are the odds that even one of them did and has remained silent?

What are the odds of none of the thousands of documents Manning leaked to Wikileaks on the Iraq and Afghan wars show no conspiracy?

What are the odds you don't understand statistics, probability or outcome?
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 06:12 PM   #193
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Trying to show how improbable 9/11 has no purpose unless I can show the same events that happened on 9/11 can be explained away much more simply and much more probable. And after all that, that is what I am going to try to do.
As far as I'm concerned whether or not an incident being discussed in the past tense is accidental or plotted in some nefarious scheme is determined by a chain of evidence and not by their raw probability of occurrence in the future. If you haven't got the chain of evidence, then I fail to see your reasoning in trying to blow this up into some big deal as having any meaning. You're simply taking the tiniest of minutiae and trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be. Reality is, you've got some inkling that this event was a big conspiracy, and even without anything to back that idea up, and no need for it... I could think of much easier paths to take in order to make that point... and do it more convincingly to boot.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 28th December 2013 at 06:42 PM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 06:40 PM   #194
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
David you keep offering an EXPLANATION. All you have posted is a list of poorly defined items of FACT. Each with a pair of ALLEGATIONS as to someone's opposing opinions.

What you have to do - and preferably in this order - is:
Are you really still holding out hope he will/can do this? If so, you're a better man than me. I give up. (Does this mean he wins?)
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 06:44 PM   #195
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
On re-reading I think I see that you are using "fact" to mean "true fact" - I wasn't - I was being legal - "fact" does not imply "true fact"
Kind of twisted, in my view, but I've understood now. I think that clarification was necessary, thanks.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 07:09 PM   #196
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- AA11. “Vaporized airplane.” It’s possible FF

-- AA11. Few parts found It’s possible FF
The planes were not vaporized, this is lie. Did you make up this lie?
The plane was in the WTC. Sorry, you lost this one.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- Found passports It’s possible FF
lol, lots of personal stuff found, you don't got anything again.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- H. Honjour flying It’s possible FF
Looks like H. Honjour figured out 911 12 years before you, and you claim to be a pilot. Bad pilots can figure out 911, and pilots who spread lies about 911 can't?

Hani had a FAA ticket, now it is in doubt you have one due to the complete ignorances of flying issues on 911.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- Pentagon section hit:
- $2.3 Trillion.
- computers and “accountants”
with $2.3 T info.
- only section of many “reinforced”
It’s possible FF
This makes no sense, but for you it is more nonsense you use to spread lies.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- FBI gathering video tapes
within minutes Possible reasonable explanation. FF
FBI job is to protect evidence. Add the FBI and rules of evidence to your list of don't do.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- no video of AA11 flying in and hitting Pent. Possible reasonable
explanation FF
Flt 11 hit the WTC. BINGO

Flight 77 is on RADAR, 5 different RADAR sites, and drops off at the Pentagon at impact. There are no high resolution video cameras aimed up in the air! lol, I wonder why. guess people who steal stuff in parking lots don't come out of the sky, but I guess you house security cameras are pointed to the stars to catch ET coming. This more nonsense which means?...
...
Nothing. lol, another lie if you imply it was not 77.


Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- Destruction of ATC audio tape
of controllers talking Possible reasonable
explanation FF
The controller interview was destroyed? lol, it is their thoughts, and not testimony, Sorry, another failed Gish Gallop. wow, not a single thing is good for anything; what is next?

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- People told don’t fly 9/11 Possible reasonable FF
(LIHOP ALSO applies.
What a bunch of nonsense. Another big lie you support and reference with talk. You are the most gullible pilot, next to Balsamo.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- Drills making things confusing Coincidence FF
- false radar blips etc.
- sending fighters long way away.
OOPs, now you get to NORAD and can't figure out an exercise would have more qualified people on board. Thus, this is a stupid claim, it makes the military more ready, not less ready. You logic is faulty.


Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- Cheney “whipping head around
and ‘ course orders stand‘ Possible reasonable FF
explanation
Cheney? lol, this is the red flag of woo, something in a command post as evidence for the real world is? Nonsense. Good job - if you had worked with command posts, you would know this means nothing. Next time get some experience before repeating failed junk from 911 truth.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- UA 93 pristine hijacker Its possible FF
bandana
You editor is bad, and you don't know how to use the quote button.

Lots of things are ejected in aircraft crashes. Bringing this up exposes your lack of experience with aircraft impacts and a general lack of knowledge.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- UA 93 no fuel in soil Its possible FF
Means? it burned up. oops -

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- Few black boxes found Its possible FF
all planes
A few is how many?
Flight 93, FDR okay, the CVR okay oops
Flight 77, FDR burnt but readable the last 4 seconds correlation data was corrupt, but 25 plus hours of flights, all 175 confirmed! CVR damaged too much.
Flight 11, and 175 missing and involved in an event with over 2,700 tons of TNT in heat energy fires, and 260 tons of TNT collapse energy. OOPS, check the specs, the FDR can't handle this much energy in heat, and impacts. Both impacts were equal to 1300 and 2000 pounds of TNT.

Why can't you do the physics and see what a FDR can handle?
The FDR could be crushed. 130 tons of KE in a collapse could damage a FDR. But go ahead, show the math on your side. Make my day.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- WTC plane hit well of center Its possible FF
both collapses look ‘identical’
What? Both collapse looked different. And you mentioned the tilt, which means you are flip flopping with your Gish Gallop.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
--UA 93 Crashed straight in Its possible FF
FDR showed 20 degree angle
Some wreckage 1-2 miles away
Wrong again.

Flt 93 crashed upside down and at 40 degrees, I have the FDR readout, why don't you? lol, another lie.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
--AA 11. ‘vaporized plane’
all or nearly all DNA identified Its possible FF
Flt 77 and 93 had all DNA identified, not 11. Only the kid you insult with lies on 77 was not identified. 11 was not all identified;

Why spread lies when you can't line up your ducks?

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
--So many reports of explosions PPL lied or mistaken FF
yet dismissed/ignored
No explosives. Darn.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
--seeing “molten steel” Not true FF
No melted steel. oops

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- box cutters take all 4 crews out Possible FF
Or small knives. Yes, when our throats are cut, it pretty much makes us dead, unable to fight anymore. It was a surprise attack, they cut your throat while you are strapped in with seat belts and shoulder harnesses. but you are a pilot and you know you are facing forward, and the attack comes from behind, as they cut our throats, and we die.
Go ahead, make up the big story how you would win a fight you never saw coming. Say something to make you the hero, as you spread more lies.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- Planes “way over max operating” Its possible FF
(and by pilots no experience)
LOL, i have the data.

Flight 11, only up to a flight certified speed for dive. OOPS, you lied.
Flight 175, over speed for seconds, and why not. I flew heavy jets and they are clean and can easily go past Vmo, and I have been over Vmo - but then I am a real pilot, and you are what? Spreading lies about 911.
Flt 93, crashed upside down in a steep dive, no way it can't exceed speeds if it has enough space to accelerate. You lost this one.
Flight 77, over-speed for 20 seconds or less, you have no idea, you don't have the FDR, and you don't care.



Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- Plane parts -- no serial #’s Who cares? FF
LOL, no need for serial numbers. Flt 11, 175, 77 and 93 are the only planes missing in the United States on 911, and all four were tracked by RADAR to where they impacted. This is a Gish Gallop to fool those who refuse to think for themselves.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
--Steel shipped to China So what? FF
So what? Steel is sold the highest bidder. If you are upset, cry about it. This means what? Nothing.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
--Acars data well after crash So? FF
ACARS keeps sending. If we die, will our mail stop? This is nonsense from an idiot, Balsamo who never flew heavies.

If you think this has merit, it means you never flew passengers or flew with the majors airlines, and make your claims of being a pilot suspect. Balsamo never made it to the left seat heavy jets, so he could be stupid enough to make this lie up. But a real pilot of heavies would not fall for this idiotic claim, exposing complete ignorance of how ACARS work.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
--Cell phone calls from crashed airplane So? FF
Cell phones do work in flight, I have used one. I was the pilot.
But on 911, the calls which lasted to be useful, were from seat backs. oops

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
--Radar shows return after crash So? FF
Nope, this is a dumb lie. RADAR show no returns after crashing. But then you mean the flight explorer, which a repeater for software derived from RADAR inputs, which coasts the targets, or does what the software says to do. Big mistake repeating something debunked before.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
--put options Even if, so what? FF
lol, a put option is traceable. You don't understand the stock market, or why when you mess up like Martha Stewart you go to jail. lol, you don't know stock, add this to the don't know list.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
--sulfidized steel So? Possible FF
Corroded steel due to fire, not hot enough to melt steel. Only 1000 C. Oops, means nothing again.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
--CIA female told not to be in NYC She lied FF
Where do you find all this nonsense?

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-Warning from others countries ignored ? FF (LIHOP/MIHOP)
And? What was the warning. So far all you have is talk.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
--Jennings/Hess Timeline we know FF
correct timeline,
you don’t
Jennings and Hess heard explosions, but did not die from the explosion which happened right next to them. Means, no explosives. Oops again.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- collapse explanations It’s possible FF
Fire destroys buildings. A fact 911 truth can't figure out. '

You spread lies about 911, and you can't help it.

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-H...80324-705.html

When will you retract these lies?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 07:25 PM   #197
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
-- AA11. “Vaporized airplane.”
None of the four planes were vaporized. Identifying parts were recovered from all four. Please stop repeating falsehoods.

Quote:
-- AA11. Few parts found
I thought you just said they were vaporized? Now it's suspicious "few parts were found?" Let me guess, if the entire plane were recovered you'd say that was suspicious as well?

Quote:
-- Found passports
As previously explained, passports are durable and light. It's predictable they would survive.

Quote:
-- H. Honjour flying
He was a licensed commercial pilot, why not? Or do you think it's hard to run a plane into three of the largest buildings on the planet?

Quote:
-- Pentagon section hit:
Largest building in the world.

Quote:
- $2.3 Trillion.
Not missing. Never was missing. No one ever said it was missing.

Quote:
- computers and “accountants” with $2.3 T info.
1) Money was not missing.
2) No specific "accountants" were in those locations.
3) "Computers" is the stupidest argument ever. Haven't Truthers heard of internet/intranets? Servers? Redundant back-ups? It was 2001, not 1975.

Quote:
- only section of many “reinforced”

It was the most vulnerable side not to mention if the jet had hit a side not upgraded that would be considered "suspicious" as well.

Quote:
-- FBI gathering video tapes within minutes
Replace "minutes" with hours. Not to mention, that is their job.

Quote:
-- no video of AA11 flying in and hitting Pent.
Wrong. IIRC, there are two security camera films. Truthers just don't like them.

Quote:
-- Destruction of ATC audio tape of controllers talking
Not familiar with this claim, however based on prior experience I am willing to bet it's been long debunked.

Quote:
-- People told don’t fly 9/11
Anecdotal. Not to mention IIRC, someone's fairly prominent spouse was on a flight.

(snipped repetitive nonsense)

Quote:
-- box cutters take all 4 crews out
That was the plan wasn't it? Not to mention, it failed on the fourth flight.

Quote:
-- Planes “way over max operating”
Yes, if they hadn't crashed they probably would have crashed.

Quote:
(and by pilots no experience)
All four were licensed commercial pilots. How hard do you think it is to crash a plane?

Quote:
--Cell phone calls from crashed airplane
1) It's perfectly possible to use your own cell phone to call - assuming you are low enough. Say, while cruising 80 stories high over Manhattan?
2) IIRC, some if not all the planes had in seat phones as well.

Quote:
--put options
Given that such things if they existed are part of the public record, you could probably produce them?
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 08:24 PM   #198
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Are you really still holding out hope
Not really and not much.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
he will/can do this?
I doubt both "will" and "can" - I suspect that the latter is dominant. "Will not" because "cannot".
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
If so, you're a better man than me.
Modesty inhibits me from commenting.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I give up. (Does this mean he wins?)
Understood. (I doubt it - he still looks like a genuine but confused truther to me - not a "game playing pretender" AKA "Troll".)

Last edited by ozeco41; 28th December 2013 at 08:41 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 08:29 PM   #199
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Kind of twisted, in my view, but I've understood now. I think that clarification was necessary, thanks.
No problem - my fault - I try to use the word with legal precision seeing that most of these discussions are implicitly set in a para-legal context.

When I remember I state "true fact" to avoid the confusion.

Forgot on this occasion. Mea culpa on that. My focus was on identifying the fact distinct from calling on him to prove it. Probably a waste of time - he doesn't seem to pick the obvious meanings so forget the nuances.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2013, 08:51 PM   #200
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
This has to be the Gishiest Gallop to ever Gish Gallop.

Seriously.

Ill defined terms ("vaporized")

Vague accusations (H. Hanjour pilot .... And????)

Stale old rebuked cherry picked tripe (oops, I Lost 2.3 Trillion dollars!!!)

Pull it together, man. Create a comprehensive story! None of the spaghetti strands are sticking anymore!!!!!!!!
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:58 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.