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, 09:06 PM   #201
SUSpilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,159
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.

I haven't read the thirty-five or so posts after the one quoted, so forgive me if the point's been made, but I see you're invoking Schrödinger's cat. Now, I am no quantum physicist by any stretch of the imagination, but I believe the theory states something like "the cat is in a closed box with a poison that kills 50% of the time, therefore, if the box is unopened, the cat is both alive and dead." That, to this simple soul, is a very profound way of looking at probabilistic events.

However, the point is that, unless I'm mistaken, this holds true to account for future possibilities, not observed events. The events of 9/11 are the observed past; no matter how unlikely any of it was, the events happened. There is no evil government conspiracy, there is no thermite, there is nothing but the plot and actions by a relatively small number of terrorists that figured out how to pull off an attack that no one in the U.S. thought would happen.

This may or may not fit your world view. But it is what it is and you just have to deal with it.
SUSpilot 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, 09:08 PM   #202
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
This has to be the Gishiest Gallop to ever Gish Gallop.
Just to cover the base Gish Gallop

Last edited by ozeco41; 28th December 2013 at 09:10 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, 09:50 PM   #203
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
I'm back. Not intoxicated but neither am I sober. But don't think it is necessary to be totally sober to respond to some of this ... stuff that came back.

Not a single one of you gets my case. I am not totally surprised but I thought maybe at least one of you would have at least an inkling and acknowledge it.

Let's start with the basis of everyone being neutral; a simple hypothetical. Everyone of us having just learned of 9/11 12 years after. No knowledge of any particular things. For the first time we are introduced to particular items that occurred. Based simply on the items -- no previous knowledge -- I presented, do I not make a case that the most likely explanation is FF?

Yes or no.
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, 10:02 PM   #204
SUSpilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
I'm back. Not intoxicated but neither am I sober. But don't think it is necessary to be totally sober to respond to some of this ... stuff that came back.



Not a single one of you gets my case. I am not totally surprised but I thought maybe at least one of you would have at least an inkling and acknowledge it.



Let's start with the basis of everyone being neutral; a simple hypothetical. Everyone of us having just learned of 9/11 12 years after. No knowledge of any particular things. For the first time we are introduced to particular items that occurred. Based simply on the items -- no previous knowledge -- I presented, do I not make a case that the most likely explanation is FF?



Yes or no.

No.
SUSpilot 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, 10:15 PM   #205
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
All of you start from a well entrenched position that CD/false flag absolutely did not occur. But, in spite of what you call your null hypothesis, you must come up with an explanation for ALL of the "oddities." You say that because your hypothesis is the "null," you do not have to explain anything.


Does not anyone get that you have proven not a thing about why anything in particular that happened, happened? Your only basis is it was not a false flag and that explains everything. All you need to do is come up with a [u]possible[u] explanation for each of the many odd occurrences, i.e., it was possible, i.e., NOT impossible. Fine. But there were [u]so[u] many! All you are able to come up with is that "it was possible."

Is your hypothesis the "null" because you say the prima facie case is because of reported arab hijackers and airplane crashes and fire?
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, 10:17 PM   #206
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by SUSpilot View Post
No.
Why?
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, 10:23 PM   #207
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
No.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Not a single one of you gets my case.
What case? You haven't made a case.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
I am not totally surprised but I thought maybe at least one of you would have at least an inkling and acknowledge it.
What do you mean by "it"
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Let's start with the basis of everyone being neutral; a simple hypothetical. Everyone of us having just learned of 9/11 12 years after. No knowledge of any particular things.
OK - one particular "thing" is that the WTC Twin Towers collapsed on 9/11. I agree with the following observable items of fact. ("True facts" btw ). (1) A plane flew into each tower; (2)fires started; (3) fires were not fought and some time later (4) the towers collapsed. Do you agree that:
A) Towers collapse was one of the things that happened on 9/11?
B) That those four facts plane strike, fires, unfought and collapsed are true facts?

AND I say based on that evidence of facts that plane strike plus unfought fires caused the collapse. That is what we call an hypothesis.

You want that collapse to be a false flag - you had better start producing some evidence and argument.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
For the first time we are introduced to particular items that occurred. Based simply on the items -- no previous knowledge -- I presented, do I not make a case that the most likely explanation is FF?
What do you mean "make a case"? you haven't even started. You need claim, evidence, reasoning. You haven't even said what "it' is that you allege is False Flag. In fact towers falling down CANNOT be false flag - it is simply a technical fact of a technical event which happened on 9/11 and it is backed by technical evidence.

So whatever else you may be thinking of but won't tell us the technical event of collapse CANNOT be false flag.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Yes or no.
No obviously.

Last edited by ozeco41; 28th December 2013 at 10:24 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, 10:33 PM   #208
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
I'm back. Not intoxicated but neither am I sober. But don't think it is necessary to be totally sober to respond to some of this ... stuff that came back.

Not a single one of you gets my case. I am not totally surprised but I thought maybe at least one of you would have at least an inkling and acknowledge it.

Let's start with the basis of everyone being neutral; a simple hypothetical. Everyone of us having just learned of 9/11 12 years after. No knowledge of any particular things. For the first time we are introduced to particular items that occurred. Based simply on the items -- no previous knowledge -- I presented, do I not make a case that the most likely explanation is FF?

Yes or no.
You haven't made a case.

Inside job? Where's your paper trail? Detonators? Perpetrators? Audio recordings of explosives? Flash from thermite? Trail of material? Anything real, for forensic evidence?

Anamolies you can't figure out? What the heck is that worth? Dude, you ain't got squat, as far as I can see.
__________________
"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, 10:37 PM   #209
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
No.
What case? You haven't made a case. What do you mean by "it"

You cannot see "it?"

"It" is EVERYTHING can be explained by "False Flag."
And explained easily. All you can come up with is "it's possible."

For example, to take the "pristine" bandana found from UA 93, you can only come up with it's not impossible. Okay, I agree. It is not impossible. But with FF, its easy -- it was planted. Which is the simpler "occam's razor" explanation? -- it was "planted." And that goes for every example I posted. The occam's razor explanation for EVERYTHING is FF. Therefore, the simplest explanation for all of 9/11 is FF. No contest.

That is the "it."

Last edited by david.watts; 28th December 2013 at 10:38 PM.
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, 10:39 PM   #210
SUSpilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Why?

See my post about Schrödinger's cat.
SUSpilot 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, 10:42 PM   #211
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
You cannot see "it?"

"It" is EVERYTHING can be explained by "False Flag."
And explained easily. All you can come up with is "it's possible."

For example, to take the "pristine" bandana found from UA 93, you can only come up with it's not impossible. Okay, I agree. It is not impossible. But with FF, its easy -- it was planted. Which is the simpler "occam's razor" explanation? -- it was "planted." And that goes for every example I posted. The occam's razor explanation for EVERYTHING is FF. Therefore, the simplest explanation for all of 9/11 is FF. No contest.

That is the "it."
Apparently you don't understand Occam's razor as much as you think you do.
__________________
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, 10:46 PM   #212
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
All of you start from a well entrenched position that CD/false flag absolutely did not occur. But, in spite of what you call your null hypothesis, you must come up with an explanation for ALL of the "oddities." You say that because your hypothesis is the "null," you do not have to explain anything.


Does not anyone get that you have proven not a thing about why anything in particular that happened, happened? Your only basis is it was not a false flag and that explains everything. All you need to do is come up with a [u]possible[u] explanation for each of the many odd occurrences, i.e., it was possible, i.e., NOT impossible. Fine. But there were [u]so[u] many! All you are able to come up with is that "it was possible."

Is your hypothesis the "null" because you say the prima facie case is because of reported arab hijackers and airplane crashes and fire?
Wow, now you've somehow divined what approach everyone who posts here used in approaching figuring out what happened on 9/11. Or so you think...
__________________
"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, 10:56 PM   #213
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by SUSpilot View Post
However, the point is that, unless I'm mistaken, this holds true to account for future possibilities, not observed events. The events of 9/11 are the observed past; no matter how unlikely any of it was, the events happened.
I agree. Planes crashed, buildings collapsed, etc. There is NO disagreement those things happened. They are in the past. But with "FF," it is not hard to understand why things happened the way they happened. IT WAS PLANNED. They planned to crash airplanes and bring down buildings. You can claim otherwise but have to explain "how." If not CD, you have to explain how. You have. But you have only explained "it's possible." You have not proved that is the only explanation. "FF" shows it was the expected result. My point: It does not have to be shown how they did CD. What I am showing is that it is that simplest explanation. AND that EVERY item I posted, "FF" is the simplest explanation. For EVERY item all you have shown is its "possible."
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, 10:57 PM   #214
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
All of you start from a well entrenched position that CD/false flag absolutely did not occur. But, in spite of what you call your null hypothesis, you must come up with an explanation for ALL of the "oddities." You say that because your hypothesis is the "null," you do not have to explain anything.


Does not anyone get that you have proven not a thing about why anything in particular that happened, happened? Your only basis is it was not a false flag and that explains everything. All you need to do is come up with a [u]possible[u] explanation for each of the many odd occurrences, i.e., it was possible, i.e., NOT impossible. Fine. But there were [u]so[u] many! All you are able to come up with is that "it was possible."

Is your hypothesis the "null" because you say the prima facie case is because of reported arab hijackers and airplane crashes and fire?
Nice strawmen.

You seem to think that the issues you've raised have not been addressed ad finitum in the 900,000 posts in this sub-forum.

You seem to think that everyone has not thought about the multitude of issues related to 9/11.

You seem to think all we ever say is "it was possible".

You are quite wrong.

Hope this helps.
Orphia Nay 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, 10:58 PM   #215
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
Apparently you don't understand Occam's razor as much as you think you do.
Maybe not. But show me what I am missing or do not understand correctly. thx
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, 11:08 PM   #216
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Nice strawmen.

You seem to think that the issues you've raised have not been addressed ad finitum in the 900,000 posts in this sub-forum.

You seem to think that everyone has not thought about the multitude of issues related to 9/11.

You seem to think all we ever say is "it was possible".

You are quite wrong.

Hope this helps.
How is that a strawmen (sic)?

Until just a few days ago I had NO idea how much all of this has been addressed. I just came here to post. I started looking for past threads a couple of days ago and wow(!), a whole bunch of them. I of course knew there had been discussion here but simply no idea how much.

So since everything has already been thought about, why any new threads at all? Is it not okay that I post, at least with what I thought was a new approach? If not, that must mean I need read for many hours everything here from the past and try to figure out what is allowed for new postings. Is that the way JREF works?
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, 11:12 PM   #217
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Wow, now you've somehow divined what approach everyone who posts here used in approaching figuring out what happened on 9/11. Or so you think...
What? I have divined something? I only want to know whether or not I have it correct the
reasons the "official story" is said at JREF to be the "null." If I do not have it correct, my next point does not apply.
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, 11:13 PM   #218
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
You cannot see "it?"

"It" is EVERYTHING can be explained by "False Flag."
And explained easily....
Then do it - stop saying "I can explain it" - and actually post the explanation. I even wrote you a "road map" back at post#185 which you choose to ignore.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
All you can come up with is "it's possible."
..and that comment is what, in polite circles, is called a lie. Specifically in the jargon of these forum discussions it is a lie supported by "quote mining". Taking something out of context and misrepresenting it to support an untrue statement.

All the evidence has been posted multiple times on this and other forums. If you ever get round to posting your explanation we can call up whatever evidence is needed in response to your explanation of your claim. BUT NOT BEFORE you post an explanation worthy of response. We cannot respond to a claim that has not been made and supported by evidence and argument. I and others have explained the process many times. Please follow it.

Last edited by ozeco41; 28th December 2013 at 11:17 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, 11:17 PM   #219
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
This is a huge list of things you missed.

Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
My short list of improbable things on 9/11:

Taking four planes and making them, the crew, passengers and hijackers disappear, substituting them with holograms or cruise missiles.
Taking the DNA from all the passengers, crew and hijackers and flying it to fake crash sites where it was planted before investigators or anyone else would notice. Substituting fake bodies in the wreckage at the Pentagon and Shanksville so that coroners wouldn't find it suspicious, but changing the DNA of those bodies to match the passenger lists from the jets.
Planting fake, yet identical, landing gear, luggage, passports and ID at all 4 crash sites, without anyone noticing.
Faking all the emergency phone calls (David Ray Griffin theory) from the jets to loved ones or others. Using voice morphing technology to fool loved ones that the caller was authentic.
Using conventional explosives, thermite, thermate and nanothermite in wildly complicated combinations, all without detection from even a single person among the thousands working in the towers and building 7.
Cutting thru office walls, moving furniture and attaching incendiaries and explosives, then putting everything back without detection.
Cutting all the way to perimeter steel in the towers to attach cutter charges, then employing never-before-seen cutter charges to make the steel look like it wasn't cut.
Cutting the perimeter columns of the towers without any ring of explosions visible to any video camera.
Create a massive inward-bowing of the perimeter columns of the towers to mimic sagging floor trusses, then mimic the eventual failure of the columns in a gradual way, using nanothermite and explosives.
Painting explosives on in 25 micron layers to cut thru the steel
Figuring out exactly where the jets would collide so as to coordinate the explosives and incendiaries with those regions of the towers.
Preventing the nanothermite from cooking off in the office fires in WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7, so it could survive to ignite the thermite or conventional explosives. Even though nanothermite burns apparently (Harrit et al.) at 430º C;
In spite of the fires in WTC 7, execute a perfect controlled demolition, while masking all sounds of explosives.
Corrupt the surviving leadership of FDNY (randomly alive after the collapses of the towers) to collude with Larry Silverstein to demolish WTC 7 - while it was burning, and after they'd lost over 300 firefighters.
Corrupt NORAD systems, Air Traffic Controllers, US Airforce in such a way that it appeared they were doing their jobs properly, as mandated, yet failed to stop the attacks.
Make sure not one corrupted person in the entire conspiracy spilled the beans, even after 12 years.
Plant nuclear bombs in the towers to disintegrate them, leaving no trace.
Turn all major buildings to dust through a never-before-seen process of molecular disassociation.
Turn all the steel into dust, yet leave 100's of thousands of tons to be shipped to China and melted down.
Develop a special type of nanothermite instead of conventional detonators, which chemically is identical to certain primer paint used on WTC steel.
Convince 100's of eyewitnesses at the Pentagon that the cruise missile was actually a normal passenger jet - without talking to them before or after the crash.


That's a short list, I could go on...
Saying these things (miraculously) happened is not evidence.

You need photographs, emails, memos, recordings, etc of the actual planning and orchestration of the "false flag".

Saying it was a false flag or an inside job just raises a whole lot of questions. It is not evidence.

Where are the FDNY, NYPD, FBI, CIA, NORAD, Forensic, etc whistleblowers?

Where are the bank statements showing payments to silence the inside job witnesses?

Where are the nanothermite requisition slips, delivery slips, packaging?

Where is the det cord for the charges?

Where are the Wikileaks / Snowden files on any premeditation or coverup?

I'm sure others can add more.
Orphia Nay 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, 11:22 PM   #220
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
How is that a strawmen (sic)?
You built up arguments to fight that noone here is making.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Until just a few days ago I had NO idea how much all of this has been addressed. I just came here to post. I started looking for past threads a couple of days ago and wow(!), a whole bunch of them. I of course knew there had been discussion here but simply no idea how much.

So since everything has already been thought about, why any new threads at all? Is it not okay that I post, at least with what I thought was a new approach? If not, that must mean I need read for many hours everything here from the past and try to figure out what is allowed for new postings. Is that the way JREF works?
You acted so sure of yourself. If you'd seen so many discussions why did you say all we say is "it's possible"?

Having said that, I welcome new members. This is a discussion forum, after all, and I hope we can continue to have a "friendly and lively" discussion.
Orphia Nay 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, 11:22 PM   #221
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
...I'm sure others can add more.
I sure can...BUT

It is his claim - HOWEVER if he doesn't know the basis of both his claim AND the claim he disagrees with he is being dishonest in claiming that he can explain it easily <<< and the various ways he has said that.

How can any honest person claim he can easily explain something when he doesn't know what he is explaining???

So I'm not into spoon feeding him.

Conversely - if he ever gets around to raising some points of factual evidence and expresses some logic as to where they fit I will expend effort assessing his facts and correcting them if they need correcting AND ditto for his logic. Who knows - he may be right on some points and I will be the one who learns. Wouldn't be the first time.


Last edited by ozeco41; 28th December 2013 at 11:24 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, 11:23 PM   #222
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
No.
(1) A plane flew into each tower; (2)fires started; (3) fires were not fought and some time later (4) the towers collapsed. Do you agree that:
A) Towers collapse was one of the things that happened on 9/11?
B) That those four facts plane strike, fires, unfought and collapsed are true facts?
1. Yes.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
A) Yes
B) Yes


"AND I say based on that evidence of facts that plane strike plus unfought fires caused the collapse. That is what we call an hypothesis."

I understand.

And you also call it the "null."
Are these you reasons for calling it the "null?" (I am sure they are but to avoid any misunderstanding I want to make sure I have it absolutely straight.) (#214): "... reported arab hijackers and airplane crashes and fire?"

Thank you


My post (#217)
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, 11:40 PM   #223
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
To put in another way:

Everything you have in defense of official story is that all of the many "things" that happened 'are not impossible.' E.g., (I believe I am right about this) ozeco said, not that we have proved WTC7 to be a fire-induced collapse, we have only proven it possible.

Note: I understand that if you have proven that in fact it could NOT have been a CD, that proves it. There are no other possibilities. To be clear, I claim you have not proven WTC7 was no CD. For if nothing else, for proof of no CD you require the many 'explosion' reports to be false or mistaken. There are at least two videos with audio of explosions. I fail to see why it is not more reasonable to consider explosions than not to. You can explain them away but only in terms of many people misinterpreting or lying. And there is audio. How is that explained away?

I very reasonably, based on the above, believe there were indeed explosions. And if explosions, CD cannot be summarily dismissed.
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, 11:43 PM   #224
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
Many things explode in fires. Try thinking of a few.

Explosions ≠ explosives.
Orphia Nay 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, 11:50 PM   #225
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
You cannot see "it?"

"It" is EVERYTHING can be explained by "False Flag."
And explained easily. All you can come up with is "it's possible."

For example, to take the "pristine" bandana found from UA 93, you can only come up with it's not impossible. Okay, I agree. It is not impossible. But with FF, its easy -- it was planted. Which is the simpler "occam's razor" explanation? -- it was "planted." And that goes for every example I posted. The occam's razor explanation for EVERYTHING is FF. Therefore, the simplest explanation for all of 9/11 is FF. No contest.

That is the "it."
I would like to see a response to the "bandana" question above. I restate it so that is does not get lost in the shuffle.


For example, to take the "pristine" bandana found from UA 93, you can only come up with it's not impossible. Okay, I agree. It is not impossible. But with FF, its easy -- it was planted. Which is the simpler "occam's razor" explanation? -- it was "planted." And that goes for every example I posted. The occam's razor explanation for EVERYTHING is FF. Therefore, the simplest explanation for all of 9/11 is FF. No contest.


Which is simpler, a "plant", or "its not impossible"?
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, 11:55 PM   #226
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Many things explode in fires. Try thinking of a few.

Explosions ≠ explosives.
So what are you saying? They did not hear explosions or they are lying? THIS WAS the DAY of 9/11!! Do you think they were the first truthers fabricating a story?

Maybe there were a couple of pressure cookers exploding that sounded like explosions. Okay, I'll give you a few. But dismiss them all? Is that reasonable? Were the audios tampered with by truthers?
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, 11:56 PM   #227
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
1. Yes.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
A) Yes
B) Yes


"AND I say based on that evidence of facts that plane strike plus unfought fires caused the collapse. That is what we call an hypothesis."

I understand.
Great. That is your starting line. Now you can take the next couple of steps.:
1) state your position on CD (i.e. Yes to CD or No to CD); AND
2) state what it was about WTC that you claim was FF or inside job ["IJ"]. (presumably you claim "Crashing planes into towers was FF/IJ. Do you claim collapse was intended? Intended with or without CD?)
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
And you also call it the "null."
I would usually avoid the term "NUL" - it has specific technical meaning which is not fully appropriate. I tend to say "default hypothesis". If I have said "NUL" my apology because I don't use it with the same implications as some of our other members. Not a big issue - see my next comment.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Are these you reasons for calling it the "null?" (I am sure they are but to avoid any misunderstanding I want to make sure I have it absolutely straight.)
I specifically do not refer to hypotheses which make global claims. All the ones I have posted in these discussions refer to a specific and defined claim. Remember I have cautioned multiple times to start from the technical elements of 9/11 AND to define what we talk about. And I have given clear reasons for that advice. So my recent comments were specifically about an hypothesis which I put forward explaining the Twin Towers collapses. Whether we call it "nul" or "default" or "Santa's personal hypothesis" matters not. It is the hypothesis which I have posted in an effort to assist you focus on presenting a reasoned explanation.

Put as simply as I can - whatever we call the hypothesis before us the challenge is for you to produce a better hypothesis - one that is more persuasive than the exiting hypothesis. It is a bigger job that I think you realise.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
(#214): "... reported arab hijackers and airplane crashes and fire?"
I have hypothesised about "airplane crashes and fire". I have not hypothesised at this stage about "Arab hijackers". My intention open - transparent. I want every building block of evidence validated and logically explained. "Arab hijackers" is about "who" - "airplane crashes and fire" is about "what" - totally different and separate issues requiring different proofs.

I see you wanting to conflate multiple arguments as if they are one single but heterogeneous argument. I won't go there. Think of what is needed if putting an argument - a "case" - before judge and jury. Each part of the case has to be supported by the evidence which is relevant to that part of the case.

Last edited by ozeco41; 28th December 2013 at 11:57 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, 11:57 PM   #228
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
"It was planted" implies "it was planted without being noticed or reported". Your answer is not as simple as you think.

Do you really think when a plane crashes that every item in every direction around is instantly engulfed in fire, or that fabric disintegrates when hitting the ground at speed?
Orphia Nay 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 29th December 2013, 12:02 AM   #229
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
... Which is simpler, a "plant", or "its not impossible"?
Neither - you are comparing apples with concrete blocks.

And I may explain if it persists AND is somehow relevant to a reasoned claim. At present it is merely irrelevant noise.

Try making YOUR explanation

AND STOP criticising others.

Even if the members post utter nonsense proving it is nonsense DOES NOT MAKE YOUR CLAIM.

Your claim will stand or fall on whether it is valid.

Not how many nits you can pick in the opposing claims.
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 29th December 2013, 12:05 AM   #230
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
Many things explode in fires. Try thinking of a few.

Explosions ≠ explosives.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
So what are you saying? They did not hear explosions or they are lying? THIS WAS the DAY of 9/11!! Do you think they were the first truthers fabricating a story?

Maybe there were a couple of pressure cookers exploding that sounded like explosions. Okay, I'll give you a few. But dismiss them all? Is that reasonable? Were the audios tampered with by truthers?
You are building strawmen again. No, I'm not saying they didn't hear explosions. No, I'm not saying they were lying.

"It sounded like an explosion/bombs" is a simile. How else do you describe an explosion? That doesn't mean they were actual bombs.

Try reading the reports of "bombs going off" with similes in mind.

Debunkers aren't denying that people heard explosions, much as you'd like them to be.
Orphia Nay 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 29th December 2013, 12:09 AM   #231
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 would like to see a response to the "bandana" question above. I restate it so that is does not get lost in the shuffle.
Why?

What claim are you making?
What does the evidence of a bandanna do for your claim?
Where does it fit in your claim?

Remember my "road map" posted at #185. Step #1
Quote:
1) State what you are claiming. For your first attempt try to keep it a single focussed and arguable claim.
Tell us where you are going and why the bandanna matters.

Here I'll play "Aussie Tag Team" with Orphia and give you an example:


I ozeco41 claim that the evidence does not support the use of explosives to cut steel at WTC Towers on 9/11 <<<My claim.

The opposing sides of evidence are:
A) Multiple reports from witnesses of sounds of explosions and a few of blast and flash effects.

Opposing that:

B) There is no evidence of:
(i) steel members cut by explosives;
(ii) remnants of explosive devices or accessories in the debris piles;
(iii) collapse mechanisms which indicate explosive cutting in preference to damage from impact and fires;
(iv) (another 5 or six big ones and lots of little ones) <<<I present the evidence both ways

THEREFORE << I draw two reasoned conclusions.
The weight of evidence says no explosive cutting of steel.
AND
Whether or not people heard explosive sounds those were not sounds from the use of explosives used to cut steel in CD.

Now whether you agree with that or not it has the structure of a reasoned argument. And you have to do that for every point where you choose to disagree with the existing hypothesis.

Do that then stand back for the next round - because you ain't seen nothing yet in terms of reasoned argument.

Last edited by ozeco41; 29th December 2013 at 12:28 AM. Reason: Got the claim pedantically accurate - I hope.
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 29th December 2013, 12:12 AM   #232
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
... Which is the simpler "occam's razor" explanation? -- it was "planted." And that goes for every example I posted. ... "?
You have no idea what occam's razor is. It is the simple path.

Planting the stuff makes it much more complicated. This means you are using some dumbed down "watt's razor", make up a lie and claim it is simple.

You only tell lies about 911. I am using occam's razor, you lie, it is simple.

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-H...80324-705.html
Quote:
Given the fact that there was not much airplane debris found at the Pentagon
Another lie. Why does 911 truth spread lies?

You don't use occam's razor, you make up lies, aka "the path of least resistance", no research required.

Last edited by beachnut; 29th December 2013 at 12:15 AM.
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 29th December 2013, 12:29 AM   #233
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Pretend you were planning an horrific horror show of a false flag for whatever reason. I say it was to get a "blank check." You won't pretend so let me do it for you.

We'll have "hijacked airplanes" so let's make sure things are very confused. I got it, false radar blips. But what about military interception? I mean something like 100 times a year they intercept aircraft all over the US for whatever reason -- no radio response, off course, what ever -- within MINUTES!! Remember Payne Stewart? Well how about having a drill on same day, same time that sends fighters out to sea? Not only is everyone confused with false radar blips, there won't be any fighters close enough. And maybe we can confuse any attempted communications with NORAD etc..
That should work. Hey, any video cameras around the Pentagon that might show what we are going to hit the Pentagon with? Check it out. Oh, a Hotel and a Citgo have cameras. Not sure what they will show. So dispense quickly after and confiscate them. That should take care of that.

And on and on. So how do you explain false radar blips on same day? "It's possible". How do you explain fighter intercepts way away? "Coincidence". How do you explain multiple video confiscation within minutes? "Possible reasonable explanation." ALL "possibles" or "possibilities."

How can they ALL be explained VERY EASILY? "Planned False Flag."

It goes on and on. I say it was a well planned false flag which can easily explain every single item I chose to point out. You have to -- many times contort -- to find a "possible" explanation for EVERY SINGLE THING!!

A well planned False Flag? That very easily and in a straight forward, unambiguous, very clear, easy to understand manner, explains EVERYTHING!!

Occam's Razor!

Put a guess at reasonable odds on every explanation the Official Story Requires? I mean, what are the odds? But I agree with you, "it's not impossible!"
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 29th December 2013, 12:33 AM   #234
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
How can they ALL be explained VERY EASILY? "Planned False Flag."
You have said that many times. We can all read.

Do it!!! Explain it!!!
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
I say it was a well planned false flag which can easily explain every single item I chose to point out.
Do it. Pick ONE. EXPLAIN it.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
You have to...
We don't "have to" - you do. We will explain our claims. You explain yours.

Your expectation that we explain our claims AND explain yours is ridiculous.
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 29th December 2013, 12:34 AM   #235
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
Hi David.

Are you going to reply to our earlier posts, or keep changing the subject?
Orphia Nay 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 29th December 2013, 12:43 AM   #236
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
And the dance continues...
HotRodDeluxe 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 29th December 2013, 12:45 AM   #237
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by HotRodDeluxe View Post
And the dance continues...
Time of day suits AU

..but I'm nearly danced out.
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 29th December 2013, 12:53 AM   #238
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
...Put a guess at reasonable odds on...
It's not about ODDS as you now know. It is simply "True" or "false" for each assertion of fact AFTER weighing the evidence both ways.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
...every explanation the Official Story Requires?
The "Official Story" doesn't require any explanation. It IS an explanation. Get your basics right. If you disagree with it tell us what, where and why you disagree. Stop saying "it is easy" just DO IT!!!

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
...I mean, what are the odds?
That's easy even though it is irrelevant. 100% for what happened. 0% for what didn't happen.
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 29th December 2013, 12:54 AM   #239
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
You cannot see "it?"

"It" is EVERYTHING can be explained by "False Flag."
And explained easily. All you can come up with is "it's possible."

For example, to take the "pristine" bandana found from UA 93, you can only come up with it's not impossible. Okay, I agree. It is not impossible. But with FF, its easy -- it was planted. Which is the simpler "occam's razor" explanation? -- it was "planted." And that goes for every example I posted. The occam's razor explanation for EVERYTHING is FF. Therefore, the simplest explanation for all of 9/11 is FF. No contest.

That is the "it."
This whole bandana thing puzzles me.

If it was actually UA 93 which crashed, why plant anything at all? Why take the risk of being spotted/caught out when UA 93 is actually there?

OTOH, if it was not UA 93 which crashed, then where is UA 93 and it's passengers?

Either way it adds a huge layer of complexity to the conspiracy/false flag scenario. Complexity which Occam happily rejects.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 29th December 2013, 12:54 AM   #240
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,214
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Pretend you were planning an horrific horror show of a false flag for whatever reason. I say it was to get a "blank check." You won't pretend so let me do it for you.

We'll have "hijacked airplanes" so let's make sure things are very confused. I got it, false radar blips. But what about military interception? I mean something like 100 times a year they intercept aircraft all over the US for whatever reason -- no radio response, off course, what ever -- within MINUTES!! Remember Payne Stewart? Well how about having a drill on same day, same time that sends fighters out to sea? Not only is everyone confused with false radar blips, there won't be any fighters close enough. And maybe we can confuse any attempted communications with NORAD etc..
That should work. Hey, any video cameras around the Pentagon that might show what we are going to hit the Pentagon with? Check it out. Oh, a Hotel and a Citgo have cameras. Not sure what they will show. So dispense quickly after and confiscate them. That should take care of that.

And on and on. So how do you explain false radar blips on same day? "It's possible". How do you explain fighter intercepts way away? "Coincidence". How do you explain multiple video confiscation within minutes? "Possible reasonable explanation." ALL "possibles" or "possibilities."

How can they ALL be explained VERY EASILY? "Planned False Flag."

It goes on and on. I say it was a well planned false flag which can easily explain every single item I chose to point out. You have to -- many times contort -- to find a "possible" explanation for EVERY SINGLE THING!!

A well planned False Flag? That very easily and in a straight forward, unambiguous, very clear, easy to understand manner, explains EVERYTHING!!

Occam's Razor!

Put a guess at reasonable odds on every explanation the Official Story Requires? I mean, what are the odds? But I agree with you, "it's not impossible!"
If I were planning the op I wouldn't time it to occur during an exercise. An exercise places more personnel and assets in the area which can easily be switched from exercise to operations. That would only serve to increase the likelihood of an interception. You might also like to note that the people responsible for QRA aren't part of any exercises and won't be getting false targets on their screens.
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
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 01:00 AM.
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.