FAQ
It is currently Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:39 am


Author Message
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:34 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4882
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
you know how pop probability goes : once may be an accident, twice starts to look suspicious and three times definitely is a pattern

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:36 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 786

Offline
Thank you marnixR for answering kojax's question without using derogatory references to numerology, or your own opinion, or a cartoon sketch. It would appear that were dealing with uncertainty here. The situation of large jet's being flown into uniquely engineered structures is complex beyond any certain ability to model. If we arbitrarily assign a probability of 50% to either collapse or no collapse, then there is nothing unusual in two same results. The collapse of the buildings in question is not sufficient to determining the accuracy of either conspiracy theory in question. Muslim radical conspiracy vs. power structure conspiracy. Terrorist conspiracy vs. false flag conspiracy.
The following is an archive of 9/11 news footage.
http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive
Perhaps the next thing to be looked at is the appearance of "squibs", material ejections from the buildings occurring previous to the collapse horizon. I've heard that these could have been the result of air pressure due to building collapse. What do some engineers have to say about this?

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:07 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5728
Location: Iowa

Offline
GiantEvil wrote:
Perhaps the next thing to be looked at is the appearance of "squibs", material ejections from the buildings occurring previous to the collapse horizon. I've heard that these could have been the result of air pressure due to building collapse. What do some engineers have to say about this?

I'm curious why people care what the engineers have to say, especially since they're already ignoring what they've said already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trad ... #Reactions

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:30 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 786

Offline
I was just curious what some people who are scientifically inclined, and in some cases actual engineers, and whom I've read hundreds of their posts and know a little bit about how they communicate, what they had to say.
The flood of information on this matter is chock a block full of reports of reports, and cartoons, and opinions. I just want to see some math, that's all.
I am honestly skeptical about both sides of this story, I smell bullocks from both end's.

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:02 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5728
Location: Iowa

Offline
The best review I saw was a few years ago on PBS Nova.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/world ... lapse.html


_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:40 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
iNow wrote:
kojax wrote:
Does that make it surprising, then, that the observable characteristics of all three collapses (WTC 1,2, & 7) would be so very similar?

IMO, No. The discussion taking place here reminds me of numerology... looking for patterns on the periphery where none are needed to fit the evidence.



I don't know how you determine questions that can't be known with certainty, but my approach is to kind of set up a scale, and add weight to both sides, determined by the evidence. Three similar collapses in a row doesn't exactly weigh a ton on my scale, but it also doesn't weigh less than an ounce.

When normal rules of causality appear to be violated (even over a small sample set), that does call a theory into question somewhat. One might expect that two buildings, one with a reasonably symmetric fire burning across it's damaged floors, and one with a very asymmetric fire burning across its damaged floors, that there would be a perceivable difference in how they ultimately fall. If you see a third building burning on the same day, which has a radically different architecture, and totally dissimilar damage, you might expect those radically different circumstances to cause...... I don't know..... at least a very slightly different result?


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:07 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5728
Location: Iowa

Offline
kojax wrote:
When normal rules of causality appear to be violated (even over a small sample set), that does call a theory into question somewhat.

See, that's just it. You're making a gigantic logical leap... to the point of being nonsequitur... that rules of causality have been violated. Really, you just don't know enough about it, and instead of learning, you seem to be using personal incredulity as the basis of your conclusion.

Maybe a bit harsh. I'm just not buying the "it violates causality" line, and I'm inclined to trust the experts over the remote possibility that this was a massive conspiracy.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:34 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 786

Offline
Here's the NIST page on the WTC Disaster.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/

More 9-11 Data from The National Security Archive.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm
Not an actual Government site, check out the homepage, use your discretion.

Probabilities are just that, consequently I am just as interested in them as I am peoples opinions.
I'll be back in a few after I have digested some of this material.

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:04 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
iNow wrote:
kojax wrote:
When normal rules of causality appear to be violated (even over a small sample set), that does call a theory into question somewhat.

See, that's just it. You're making a gigantic logical leap... to the point of being nonsequitur... that rules of causality have been violated. Really, you just don't know enough about it, and instead of learning, you seem to be using personal incredulity as the basis of your conclusion.

Maybe a bit harsh. I'm just not buying the "it violates causality" line, and I'm inclined to trust the experts over the remote possibility that this was a massive conspiracy.


In physics, probability analysis is often the only way to determine causality. In QM, causality only even exists on the probability level. If you blindfold yourself and throw three darts at a dart board and they all hit the same spot, that's not unlike shooting three photons out of a photon gun and noting that all three struck the same detector.

If you're shooting hundreds and hundreds out a day, then having three hit the same detector out of that set is not exceptional. But, if those are the only three you ever shot three in the whole history of the world, and they all hit the same detector, that might be noteworthy. Of course you can't be sure of anything until you repeat the experiment a lot of times to be sure it wasn't a fluke. That's why you assign a "confidence level" to your findings. In this case, ofr course, it's impossible to repeat the experiment, something the official story and conspiracy theory both exploit to their advantages. It's evidence that I would also ignore if nothing else were fishy.

Statistics is subject to the "Texas Sharpshooter" fallacy (a mistake common to conspiracy theories as well), where a guy fires a hundred shots at the broadside of a barn, circles the closest grouping of 3 shots, and declares them to be the only three he intentionally aimed ... but in this case they really are honestly the only three.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:28 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
I'm curious about the other side,. The 19 hijacker theory sounds more practical, and better correlated, but is it really? What do we know? Al Qaeda had a plot to suicide crash some planes. They also had plans to build a rail gun in one their bases after the special forces started raiding them. What tells us which of their plans are real and which ones are make believe? How strongly can we adhere to evidence that clearly isn't evidence of anything at all?

Suppose there's a guy named Jack, who goes around telling people he's going to kill them all the time. One day a single person he threatened dies. Is he the killer? Or suppose he threatened the same person over and over with different methods of death (a person who many others are also threatening to kill). One day they die by a method on his (very long) list. Is he the killer?

We have records of certain named individuals attending flight school. Do we also have records of all the failed attempts to train an operative that ended when the guy lost his nerve, or is Al Qaeda 4 for 4? Atta, Hanjour, and Al-Shehhi are pretty believable. Atta and Hanjour look angry in their photos, and Al-Shehhi was known for never smiling. But Jarrah is a little bit harder to believe. The guy had marriage plans and pending social engagements with relatives whom he appeared to get along with. Not exactly your typical isolated sociopath. (On the other hand, he's also the one pilot who didn't actually kill himself. He was on the plane that went down in Shanksville.)

Maybe instead of trying to offer so much in the way of positive evidence, conspiracy theorists should ask the official story's supporters to back their version up. What evidence do they honestly have, other than the smouldering debris (which prove both theories equally well.)


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 2:29 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5728
Location: Iowa

Offline
kojax wrote:
In physics, probability analysis is often the only way to determine causality. In QM, causality only even exists on the probability level. If you blindfold yourself and throw three darts at a dart board and they all hit the same spot, that's not unlike shooting three photons out of a photon gun and noting that all three struck the same detector.

If you're shooting hundreds and hundreds out a day, then having three hit the same detector out of that set is not exceptional. But, if those are the only three you ever shot three in the whole history of the world, and they all hit the same detector, that might be noteworthy. Of course you can't be sure of anything until you repeat the experiment a lot of times to be sure it wasn't a fluke. That's why you assign a "confidence level" to your findings. In this case, ofr course, it's impossible to repeat the experiment, something the official story and conspiracy theory both exploit to their advantages. It's evidence that I would also ignore if nothing else were fishy.

Statistics is subject to the "Texas Sharpshooter" fallacy (a mistake common to conspiracy theories as well), where a guy fires a hundred shots at the broadside of a barn, circles the closest grouping of 3 shots, and declares them to be the only three he intentionally aimed ... but in this case they really are honestly the only three.


That's all well and good, but statistically speaking, the buildings most probably came down as a result of planes crashing into them, and not due to some overcomplicated, deeply complex, psychologically tortured hyper-conspiracy involving thousands of people.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:58 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
iNow wrote:
involving thousands of people.


Why does everyone throw in that straw man? Who says it would involve "thousands of people"? What kind of idiot conspirators would be unable to find a way to do it with a small team?

My version of the conspiracy theory involves an extra-government group, like Bilderberg, or Mossad (still government, but not ours.) Some agents within the government might have played a role, but they weren't acting as government agents (I mean this in the sense of how a corrupt police officer might really be on the Mafia's payroll, but... still picks up his check as a police officer also.)

Silverstien and Donald Rumsfeld are both likely candidates for participation. I highly doubt any other members of the Bush administration would have been in on it. Silverstien could grant a Mossad/Bilderberg/Skulls/Corporate agent unlimited access to the buildings. Just say they're doing some kind of legitimate construction work. Hell.... say the guy's there to examine the asbestos insulation (because with a 99 year lease he's got to expect someday he's going to be required to replace it all.)

Rumsfeld was Secretary of State, and a former Air Force pilot. Probably he'd know how to push the defense systems' buttons just the right way if he wanted to ensure nobody intercepted the flights. He's also the one who pushed and pushed to make the 911 attack into a justification to invade Iraq. Insiders have said that he had the idea all hatched and had started pushing it on the others from within hours of the towers falling.

So there's your conspiracy: 2 guys inside.

For tech, you've got 1 - a demolition guy, 2 - someone to figure out how to rig the planes to fly by remote, 3 - some people to take over the planes and then parachute to safety somewhere along the way (preferably Arab looking). 4- Someone to arrange to get all the patsies to be on the appropriate flights. (Just tell them you're going to sell them a bomb or something, and what flight you want them to arrive on for the purchase.)


Top
x(x-y)
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:20 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 298
Location: UK

Offline
iNow wrote:
That's all well and good, but statistically speaking, the buildings most probably came down as a result of planes crashing into them, and not due to some overcomplicated, deeply complex, psychologically tortured hyper-conspiracy involving thousands of people.


Well that's the problem right there, isn't it now? Putting the nature of the 3 tower collapses down to statistics is highly inadequate and not very constructive at all- and even if you were to look at the events in a purely statistical manner then it still doesn't add up; 3 structural steel skyscrapers collapsed completely, essentially, due to fires in one day (and in the case of WTC-7, only due to fires), whereas not a single structural steel building had collapsed completely due to fire ever before and ever since 9/11. So, statistically, it's a bit of a "needle in a haystack" situation. And let's not forget that the Empire State Building has been hit by a B-52 Bomber... And it didn't collapse...

Anyway, obviously, we do not just looking at the events of 9/11 from a statistical point of view- rather we study it from a scientific and engineering perspective. And, again, things get quite fuzzy as you look into the situation further and further. Let's have a look at a few of the facts given

• Straight down, symmetrical progression outside footprint.
• 200fps ejection of building Mat's at lower floors.
• 2/3 free fall acceleration through path of (what should've been) greatest resistance.
• Near total destruction of structural steel frame.
• Lateral ejection of structural steel up to 600ft at 60mph.
• Enormous pycroclastic-like clouds of pulverised concrete.
• Pools of molten iron and iron microspheres in WTC-dust.
• Nano-thermite composite explosives found in dust.
• Squibs (characteristic of controlled demolitions) in all 3 cases.
• Plastic deformation with no signs of elastic, ductile deformation (as would be expected from gradual heated sagging of members), in all 3 cases.

Just to name a few...

_________________
"Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway".
- Feynman


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:05 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
I like how Jarrah can't even keep a straight face in his martyrdom video, and has to be coached through it to get the seriousness down. If it were a real martyrdom video, and this guy is seriously contemplating killing himself, do you think he would have that problem? But if someone is putting him up to it and he thinks it's just a prank or some kind of ruse, then of course keeping a straight face must be the hardest part.

That's how you set up a patsy. Tell him he's posing as something bad to lure out real bad guys, or for a movie, or whatever have you. He'll incriminate himself every which way, and then after he's no longer alive to set the record straight you can paint him black. Hindsight is 20/20. How should he know what the footage will be used for later on?

Jarrah's Video

There's a fine recent example in Oregon of someone the FBI entrapped into making a terrorist case for them. A 19 year old kid name Mohamed Osman Mohamud. They basically coached him into trying to blow up Pioneer Square in Portland, and even provided him with the (disabled) bomb to do it with.

Hell, that's stuff that happens on the official level. Just think what's possible for an organization operating outside the official government.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde ... _bomb.html

http://news.opb.org/article/pioneer-squ ... postponed/


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 3:41 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5728
Location: Iowa

Offline
x(x-y) wrote:
Well that's the problem right there, isn't it now? Putting the nature of the 3 tower collapses down to statistics is highly inadequate and not very constructive at all

Please review my post again in context. It was directly tied to kojax' post.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:25 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
Yeah. I was suggesting that, when you consider all the different ways a building could collapse, the likelihood of three buildings all falling the same way on the same event (owned by the same owner) is slim. Of course, it's also what we observed.

It's kind of an appeal to the "you think I was born yesterday?" kind of common sense argument, but I had to go and try to make a statistical argument from it instead. And because of that, it has drawn no shortage of criticism.

The real determining issue for its strength as a statistical problem is to know how many different ways were possible. If few ways were possible, or the vertical collapse were more likely than the others by a lot, then it might not mean anything at all. If the random likelihood of the collapse being vertical, as opposed to something else, is say.... 50%, then having three buildings fall that way on one day would be like flipping a coin three times and getting the same result all three times, a 1 in 4 chance. Not terribly extraordinary.

If there were 100 possibilities, all equally likely, then the odds would be one out of 10,000. That's a strong enough chance against that it would overrule any concern over the size of the sample set. Usually small sample sets are considered to have low confidence, but if it the odds are extreme, like if you buy two lottery tickets in your whole life and both win the jackpot, then you don't need a large sample set to declare a miracle.


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:00 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 786

Offline
x(x-y) wrote:
• Plastic deformation with no signs of elastic, ductile deformation (as would be expected from gradual heated sagging of members), in all 3 cases.

I am assuming that plastic vs. elastic deformation is like melted vs. warped.
I would like to see some evidence and/or citations backing this.

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
DrRocket
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 10:03 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:22 am
Posts: 477

Offline
GiantEvil wrote:
x(x-y) wrote:
• Plastic deformation with no signs of elastic, ductile deformation (as would be expected from gradual heated sagging of members), in all 3 cases.

I am assuming that plastic vs. elastic deformation is like melted vs. warped.
I would like to see some evidence and/or citations backing this.


No.

Plastic deformation (yield) is permanent -- as in permanent bending where the material strain has exceeded the yield limit.

Elastic deformation exists only while a load is applied -- like a spring.

Ductility refers to the ability to undergo plastic deformation without ultimate failure (breaking) -- bending but not breaking in essence. Ductility is the opposite of brittleness.

About the only time you can get ultimate failure of a metal without first experiencing significant yield is in an explosive event involving a true detonation (a combustion mode found only in high explosives).

You can safely ignore x(x-y).

_________________
gone


Top
x(x-y)
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:52 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 298
Location: UK

Offline
Quote:
You can safely ignore x(x-y).


Pleasant, but utterly useless when discussing science and not "sociology" (so to speak).

Quote:
Ductility refers to the ability to undergo plastic deformation without ultimate failure (breaking) -- bending but not breaking in essence. Ductility is the opposite of brittleness.


Exactly, the steel members, columns and connections in structural steel skyscrapers (and by extent, all structural steel buildings) are designed to deform in a ductile manner giving the people inside the building enough time to escape- in all 3 cases, most notably WTC-7 having not been hit by a plane, the buildings showed sudden plastic deformation with no signs of any ductile type deformation prior to total collapse; it would be expected that if the steel members were subject to high temperature fires for long enough then they would begin to sag and bend gradually which would show from the exterior as partial collapses may take place. But for the entire building to collapse into its own footprint in just under 7 seconds due to fires spread across only 8 floors (not "engulfed in flames" as NIST attempted to state in their final report) is incredibly strange especially seeing as other structural steel buildings (such as the case study I mentioned in my long post a few pages back, I forget it's name now) have suffered extensive fires across nearly every story and not suffered a total collapse.

And my other points made in my last post and long post still stand...

_________________
"Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway".
- Feynman


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 1:33 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
How hard do you think it would be for Rumsfeld to procure some military grade thermite? Maybe set up an op that calls for it, have it transferred to some location awaiting pickup by another team, then that other team never shows up? The mission gets canceled. Or .... better yet... the team does show up, never really goes on the mission (just claims to have gone and failed), then reports the thermite lost or used or destroyed. Never mind the more obvious possibility of claiming to send it to rebels in some African country.

We all remember Iran Contra. How many conspirators did it take to move missiles to Iran, and guns to the Contras in Columbia?


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 8:50 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4882
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
kojax wrote:
We all remember Iran Contra. How many conspirators did it take to move missiles to Iran, and guns to the Contras in Columbia?


you're quoting things that went public, something that never seems to happen to claimed conspiracies

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:58 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
marnixR wrote:
kojax wrote:
We all remember Iran Contra. How many conspirators did it take to move missiles to Iran, and guns to the Contras in Columbia?


you're quoting things that went public, something that never seems to happen to claimed conspiracies


The classic hindsight vs. foresight argument. Why is it unlikely that other similar scandals have been conducted successfully, absent public knowledge? Were the Iran Contra conspirators guaranteed to fail because of something?

All I was citing it for was to point out that military hardware can disappear without anyone noticing. Iran Contra was a matter of missiles going missing and nobody noticing. All I'm suggesting for 911 is that someone in Rumsfeld's position could procure some nano-thermite ordinance. Which do you think is harder to make disappear?


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:56 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
The problem with big conspiracies, about big topics, is that "too big to fail" kicks in. We collectively can't afford the outcome of letting it come to light.

You see it on the small scale all the time in religious communities, when some guy who's a "pillar of the community" decides to molest his daughter. The truth is so awful, and would tear the community so far apart, that she's unlikely to be believed, certainly unlikely to retain her reputation, if she comes forward, so all too often such people suffer in silence. Maybe come back ten years later after they've established a life elsewhere and tell their stories.

How much does it take for people to understand that the large scale and the small scale aren't really that much different?


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:22 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4882
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
the problem with big conspiracies is the inordinate amount of control that would be required to keep everything tightly under wraps, control that in everyday life just isn't there

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:31 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 786

Offline
Certainly the mind knows what the left and right hand are both doing, as it has told them what to do. But neither the left or right hand knows what the other does.

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:32 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
marnixR wrote:
the problem with big conspiracies is the inordinate amount of control that would be required to keep everything tightly under wraps, control that in everyday life just isn't there


How is that? What control? How does a thing like 911 require more control than running a drug cartel? (Something which we know happens quite a lot.) People keep building this up like it's so much harder to do than it is.

You think it takes effort to convince your co conspirators not to come forward, admit to treason and spend the rest of their lives in prison? I'll tell you what takes control: convincing 19 people to commit suicide all on the same day at the same time. That's takes control. Convincing them to save their own necks is comparatively a lot easier.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:46 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5728
Location: Iowa

Offline
His point becomes a lot more clear when considered in context of global warming. If that is really a "big conspiracy" like so many claim, then it does require an inordinate amount of control (control which isn't there) to keep things under wraps. The rest is just orders of magnitude. Nobody is saying it's impossible. The point is that it's unlikely.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:51 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
So our options are "big conspiracy" and "Al Qaeda"? No third option for a small conspiracy?

You're willing to believe 19 people could pull this off by killing themselves, but you're not willing to believe a similarly small number of people could pull this off as a false flag op, without all the suicide? You know Mossad has fanatics too.


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:49 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 786

Offline
I don't know about the authenticity of the assertions, but there is also PNAC, Operation Northwoods, and alleged tie's between Al Qaeda and the CIA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Wilson_(Texas_politician)

Hmm, some more Wiki stuff;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

I figured that things like PNAC, and Operation Northwoods were probably just conjecture. But here they are, written up in Wiki, with citations and references.

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:15 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4882
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
kojax wrote:
... but you're not willing to believe a similarly small number of people could pull this off as a false flag op, without all the suicide?


i'm not saying that's unlikely - what i'm saying is that some evidence would have been uncovered by someone over the last 10 years if that had been the case
after all, a drug cartel is not totally leak-proof, and information does become publicly available over time

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:40 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 786

Offline
There's this;
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
There are nine different names on that article, for it to be a fabrication they would all have to agree to the fabrication.
And then there's this little bit;
http://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=911+bone+fragments
I'm curious as to what forces are involved in the fragmentation of bone?

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
DrRocket
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:01 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:22 am
Posts: 477

Offline
GiantEvil wrote:
There's this;
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
There are nine different names on that article, for it to be a fabrication they would all have to agree to the fabrication.


The mere inclusion of Steven Jones in the list of authors is enough to disqualify that paper from serious consideration.

Getting 9 wackos to collaborate is not particularly difficult. Now ask yourself why the editor of this journal resigned over the publication of this article. http://truthgonewild.blogspot.com/2009/ ... mical.html

_________________
gone


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:09 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
marnixR wrote:
kojax wrote:
... but you're not willing to believe a similarly small number of people could pull this off as a false flag op, without all the suicide?


i'm not saying that's unlikely - what i'm saying is that some evidence would have been uncovered by someone over the last 10 years if that had been the case
after all, a drug cartel is not totally leak-proof, and information does become publicly available over time


Where would this evidence be recovered from? The wreckage of the planes? The wreckage of the buildings? Or are you looking for a signed confession? A paper trail maybe?

Oh wait.... some evidence has been uncovered. Looking at the top link in Giant Evil's post above, it looks like they've even recovered chips of what appears to be undetonated nano-thermite. Since there were no actual guns fired, residue from the bombs might be as close to a "smoking gun" as we're going to get.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocp ... 7TOCPJ.pdf

It's not an easy read, and I only skimmed it to the parts I was interested in, but they put the material under an electron microscope to confirm the aluminum and iron particles were really really small, like nano-thermite. I think you'd need pretty specialized equipment to get them that small.

Quote:
X-ray energy-dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) analyses
of both the red and gray layers from cross sections prepared
from the four dust samples were performed and representative spectra are shown in Figs. (6, 7). The four spectra in Fig.
(6) indicate that the gray layers are consistently characterized
by high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount
of carbon. The chemical signatures found in the red layers
are also quite consistent (Fig. 7), each showing the presence
of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe) and oxygen (O), and
a significant carbon (C) peak as well.
At still higher magnifications, BSE imaging of the red
layer illustrates the similarity between the different dust
samples. BSE images of small but representative portions of
each red-layer cross section are shown in Fig. (8). The results indicate that the small particles with very high BSE
intensity (brightness) are consistently 100 nm in size and
have a faceted appearance. These bright particles are seen
intermixed with plate-like particles that have intermediate
BSE intensity and are approximately 40 nm thick and up to
about 1 micron across. Furthermore, by comparing the BSE
image in Fig. (8a) to the SE image in Fig. (9), it can be seen
that all of the particles are embedded in an unstructured matrix which gives a dark BSE intensity


If you're waiting for a co-conspirator to come forward and confess, I wouldn't hold your breath. It sounds to me like nothing short of that would convince you that they did leave "some evidence".

[


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:20 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
DrRocket wrote:
The mere inclusion of Steven Jones in the list of authors is enough to disqualify that paper from serious consideration.



That's got to be a bit of an exaggeration.

Whatever his past mistakes, he does have a degree in physics, and has made legitimate contributions in the past during his career. Certainly his word on a matter doesn't carry the same weight as that of a more reputable scientist, but certainly more than a lot of people, so really I'd have to suggest leaving the question up to who reviews it.

I've been able to find some (limited) peer review for the paper, and there are objections. I found this at least:

http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/ ... -cant.html

I might be inclined to agree with you (including the characterization) after I give this a good read.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:15 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4882
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
kojax wrote:
Where would this evidence be recovered from? The wreckage of the planes? The wreckage of the buildings? Or are you looking for a signed confession? A paper trail maybe?[


people tend to blab - if a conspiracy takes place, the more people are involved, and the more time passes by, the higher the likelihood that someone will blab
the fact that this hasn't happened reduces the probability that a conspiracy actually took place

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
GiantEvil
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:31 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:19 am
Posts: 786

Offline
Well, I can't say Mormonism scores cred points. But Jones's cold fusion work was the muon-catalyst variety, and done for the DOE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Apparently iron microsphere's were found by an RJ Lee group, and USGS, study.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/cache/nyenvirolaw_WTCDustSignatureCompositionAndMorphology.pdf
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

Somewhere near the end of the Jones report it's suggested that the high amounts of silicone were part of a paint base.
Hire some Mexicans to do some painting...

_________________
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
-W. K. Clifford-


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:48 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
marnixR wrote:
kojax wrote:
Where would this evidence be recovered from? The wreckage of the planes? The wreckage of the buildings? Or are you looking for a signed confession? A paper trail maybe?[


people tend to blab - if a conspiracy takes place, the more people are involved, and the more time passes by, the higher the likelihood that someone will blab
the fact that this hasn't happened reduces the probability that a conspiracy actually took place


How many people are you thinking of? And what were their roles?

I mentioned before that a lot of the technical details could be assigned to engineers who have no clue what their designs will later be used for. They're not going to break a confidentiality agreement to tell an investigator that they remember doing work on a blackbox that added functionality to be overridden by a remote device.... or whatever. Even if they did, there'd be no way to confirm that their project played a role. Even if someone is hired to procure Thermite, .... how do they know what it's going to be used for?

The only people you have to worry about blabbing are the ones who actually know something, like the ones who did the deed itself. If someone set explosives in WTC 1, 2, or 7, that guy could (potentially) talk too much. Whoever gave him access (such as Larry Silverstien) could talk. If they had a man in the government (such as Donald Rumsfeld), he might talk. And, of course, both of those last two men *have* made statements that border on blabbing, but don't quite put them over the line.

Whoever took over the planes, if it wasn't the 19 hijackers (and at least flight 93 had to have had real hijackers on board, given the number of cell phone calls), those guys might talk later on. If someone at Shanksville planted evidence (as one very determined blogger on another 911 discussion thread I've been on continually insisted for pages... and pages...) that person could potentially talk.

Who's left?


Top
x(x-y)
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:52 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 298
Location: UK

Offline
marnixR wrote:
i'm not saying that's unlikely - what i'm saying is that some evidence would have been uncovered by someone over the last 10 years if that had been the case
after all, a drug cartel is not totally leak-proof, and information does become publicly available over time


Interestingly, on that topic, the information on the government authorised "gun-running" and "operation fast-and-furious" programs is starting to come out now- Eric Holder admitting that the DoD authorised the illegal trading of guns over the Mexican border which disastrously ended up in real Cartels hands and even being used to kill US citizens- a quick google search will return lots of results on this.

Anyway, back on topic...

DrRocket wrote:
The mere inclusion of Steven Jones in the list of authors is enough to disqualify that paper from serious consideration.


Irrelevant. I couldn't care less if the analysis and observational evidence came from a radical Islamist- if it's correct and reputable, then that's all that matters. And, so far, I haven't really seen many proper criticisms and challenges to the work of those such as Jones, Szamboty, Bowman, Dustenwald etc on the research of 9/11.

From a scientific perspective, I say leave the research of the events of 9/11 open- to say that NIST's final reports are irrefutable would be highly unscientific and most people acknowledge the fact that there are still flaws in the "official story" which have never been explained. There is no harm in continuing the research- after all, nearly 3000 people did die on that day, just shoving out an "official report" and essentially saying "that'll do" is quite disrespectful in my opinion.

_________________
"Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway".
- Feynman


Top
x(x-y)
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:57 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 298
Location: UK

Offline
kojax wrote:
I mentioned before that a lot of the technical details could be assigned to engineers who have no clue what their designs will later be used for. They're not going to break a confidentiality agreement to tell an investigator that they remember doing work on a blackbox that added functionality to be overridden by a remote device.... or whatever. Even if they did, there'd be no way to confirm that their project played a role. Even if someone is hired to procure Thermite, .... how do they know what it's going to be used for?


Interesting points actually, and it reminds me of what the chief electrical engineer of WTC-1 and -2 said (he is now part of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) concerning the topic. He stated that all electrical engineers involved with the elevator shaft had 24/7 access to such a facility and the elevator shafts were, of course, right next to the main steel core columns of the towers- giving such an engineer access to them.

_________________
"Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway".
- Feynman


Top
SkinWalker
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 10:45 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:57 pm
Posts: 433

Offline
kojax wrote:
Even if someone is hired to procure Thermite, .... how do they know what it's going to be used for?


You do realize what you just typed, right? I'm not an explosives or demolitions expert by any means. And I'm not a chemist or physicist by even a long shot. But I do know something about thermite. Don't ask how or why. I won't answer. Thermite is heavy, bulky, and it would take an amount that would require dozens of people to be in the know to mix, transport, and implement.

It would be easier (and far, far cheaper) to simply hijack a plane and fly it into the building and let the jet fuel and impact do its thing.

I recommend the Skeptical Inquirer's review of the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. It was just in a 2011 issue that I have at home. It covers all of the chief arguments of conspiracy nutters. You might be able to find this one online since it was a feature article.


Top
x(x-y)
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:11 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 298
Location: UK

Offline
SkinWalker wrote:
recommend the Skeptical Inquirer's review of the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. It was just in a 2011 issue that I have at home. It covers all of the chief arguments of conspiracy nutters. You might be able to find this one online since it was a feature article.


Well I'll have a look at that in a while to see if it lives up to those claims...

_________________
"Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway".
- Feynman


Top
DrRocket
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:03 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:22 am
Posts: 477

Offline
GiantEvil wrote:
Well, I can't say Mormonism scores cred points. But Jones's cold fusion work was the muon-catalyst variety, and done for the DOE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones



Yeah, he received some DOE funding for muon-catylized fusion that produced nothing. You could at that time get government agencies to sponsor all sorts of nonsense. Alvarez had discovered the principle of muon catalyzed fusion in 1956 but quickly abandoned the notion as impractical purposes for energy generation. Later some Russians reported a more promising approach involving deuterium and tritium which Jones pursued with little sound justification and a great deal of justified skepticism from the physics community. He spent a lot of money and produced nothing. His DOE sponsor has about as much residual credibility as Jones -- zero.

But he was also chasing other ghosts.

At at the same time that Pons and Fleischmann were about to insert their feet in their mouth he was chasing the same basic thing which he called piezonuclear fusion. This was the subject of much of his work and was key in the ensuing cold fusion fiasco. So don't be fooled by the fact that his web page talks about muon catylized fusion but is silent on the subject of piezonuclear fusion.

Jones is not to be taken seriously. Neither are 9/11 conspiracy theories. Life is way too short to waste time on papers by known wackos.

There was a 9/11 conspiracy. Al Queda was the source. Their leader is dead. Others preceded him. Still others are likely to follow. Good riddance.

_________________
gone


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:04 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5728
Location: Iowa

Offline
x(x-y) wrote:
SkinWalker wrote:
recommend the Skeptical Inquirer's review of the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. It was just in a 2011 issue that I have at home. It covers all of the chief arguments of conspiracy nutters. You might be able to find this one online since it was a feature article.


Well I'll have a look at that in a while to see if it lives up to those claims...


http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_9_11_ ... ade_later/

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:15 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
Reading through this peer review on Jones and Harrits' thermite find, I have to admit Jones is now 0 for 2 with me. (His first strike was the speed of collapse argument, which isn't actually true either)

posting.php?mode=quote&f=39&p=3340

He's got one strike left. I hope he uses it wisely.


Last edited by kojax on Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:27 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
Here's some useful footage (highly editorialized - sorry about that) of the WTC 7 collapse.

In the first view, we can see the building from the about the 25th floor on up to the 47th (top) floor as it falls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp ... ure=fvwrel

The second one is less useful. It's got it from a more straight on view, but seeing less of the building. However it has some nice footage of buildings undergoing some genuine controlled demolitions if you want to (objectively?) compare what the falls would look like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

The Wiki article has a good summary of the official reasons for the collapse. Basically the idea is that Column 79 got pushed off of its seat by the lateral expansion of some of the horizontal supports. And everything followed from there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC_7#9.2F11_and_collapse

An interesting aside is that lots of very big federal cases fell apart as a result of the loss of data that was being stored exclusively in that building.

Quote:
World Trade Center housed SEC files relating to numerous Wall Street investigations, as well as other federal investigative files. All the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. Although some were backed up elsewhere, others were not, especially those classified as confidential.[47] Files relating to Citigroup's connection to the WorldCom scandal were lost.[48] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimated over 10,000 cases were affected.[49] Investigative files in the Secret Service's largest field office, with more than 200 employees, were also lost in the collapse of WTC 7. One Secret Service agent said, “All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building.


You don't think that prison time would motivate some people to commit a mass murder?


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:46 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
kojax wrote:
Reading through this peer review on Jones and Harrits' thermite find, I have to admit Jones is now 0 for 2 with me. (His first strike was the speed of collapse argument, which isn't actually true either)

posting.php?mode=quote&f=39&p=3340

He's got one strike left. I hope he uses it wisely.



Sorry to triple post, but I need to follow up on my own statement. After this peer review objection was made by Rancourt there was more follow up, and it appears Jones and Harrit methods were more complete than it appeared at first. They simply hadn't put all of the information about their research into the paper. It's still quite unfortunate that this discussion couldn't have taken place prior to publication, so as to give us a better final paper.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45837672/1012 ... Rancourt-1

Jones still has 2 strikes left, not 1.

As concerns Dr. Rocket's statements about Jones, I'm not a big fan of Ad Hominem arguments, or "arguments to the man", unless they go to the person's expertise. The idea that Dr. Jones is a "bad source" and therefore no amount of evidence can ever be brought to bear that would be sufficient to convince us to side with his perspective is quite frankly ludicrous.


Top
x(x-y)
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:39 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 298
Location: UK

Offline
kojax wrote:
As concerns Dr. Rocket's statements about Jones, I'm not a big fan of Ad Hominem arguments, or "arguments to the man", unless they go to the person's expertise. The idea that Dr. Jones is a "bad source" and therefore no amount of evidence can ever be brought to bear that would be sufficient to convince us to side with his perspective is quite frankly ludicrous.


I absolutely and completely agree with this. It seems some people may have a bit of a superiority complex, I'm used to it from school and society in general though...

_________________
"Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway".
- Feynman


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:06 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4882
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
on the other hand, if you've asked someone for advice, and time and again that person has given you duff advice, could you still call it an ad hominem if you started to equate the actual person with the origin of duff info ?

at work you learn quickly who the useful people in a project are, and who the hangers-on
once you've figured out who they are, you try to get as many of the former, and as few of the latter as you can manage for your next project - that's nothing to do with ad hominem or discrimination but with common sense if you want a project that's seen to go places

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
x(x-y)
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:13 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 298
Location: UK

Offline
marnixR wrote:
on the other hand, if you've asked someone for advice, and time and again that person has given you duff advice, could you still call it an ad hominem if you started to equate the actual person with the origin of duff info ?


Personally, I see this as a bit of a fallacy. Of course, with the situation mentioned above, a relationship can be drawn between the person and the information quality- however, I find it unequivocally wrong to suggest that just because someone may have made numerous false claims that every single future claim they make is going to be wrong; sure, it could mean that the probability of their claim being false is higher, but it doesn't mean that they're definitely not going to be correct.

Take Einstein for example, or even those such as Galileo, Copernicus and Newton, their ideas were new and quite revolutionary at the time- they were met with a lot of dismissals and even snobbery from many people of those times- the latter examples in particular as they challenged the beliefs/opinions of the oppressive church and it's proponents at the time. However, it turns out that their ideas were correct (well, not for definite in Einstein's case and not for all situations in Newton's case- but you know what I mean).

The church example, with Galileo and Copernicus being dismissed, leads me onto my next point quite nicely actually. My problem with those who jump to conclusions and just immediately dismiss anything which does not coincide with the official story of 9/11 (and, by extent, many other situations such as JFK Assassination, Cuban False Flag plans etc) is that they, much aligned to those who supported the church and its opinions during the Medieval period, seem to follow the officials like they are some sorts of Demi-gods or prophets to humanity and what they say has to be the truth (or, the "gospel", linking back to the oppressive Christian regime of the past mentioned above).

Another problem is that, and I will name names because it is necessary, those on here such as DrRocket and even MarnixR (to an extent) seem to think that I completely agree with 9/11 "conspiracy theories" and thus I must be "a conspiracy nut" and they also seem to imply that I disagree with every official story. That is to say, they're wrong if they think this- in a scientific way, as I'm taught to act like at school having taken scientific A-Levels, I like to approach ideas (especially those which are profound and involve the deaths of thousands) with a fair degree of scepticism rather than just picking a side and sticking with it. In all honesty, I really do not know which "side" has the most "going for it" in the case of 9/11 (and don't just say that "the conspiracy theories" have no evidence because that's just ridiculous)- and I doubt that anybody will truly know what happened on that frantic day. However, before those such as DrRocket and iNow dismiss me and say, I quote from the former member mentioned: "you can safely ignore x(x-y)"- you must remember that I am only 17 (nearly 18) and will be attending university next September to study physics- so, maybe, having learnt more I shall hold a completely different viewpoint on 9/11 due to the extra gain in physics knowledge.

That's all.

_________________
"Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway".
- Feynman


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Re-investigation of 9/11 Events  |  Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:35 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
marnixR wrote:
on the other hand, if you've asked someone for advice, and time and again that person has given you duff advice, could you still call it an ad hominem if you started to equate the actual person with the origin of duff info ?

at work you learn quickly who the useful people in a project are, and who the hangers-on
once you've figured out who they are, you try to get as many of the former, and as few of the latter as you can manage for your next project - that's nothing to do with ad hominem or discrimination but with common sense if you want a project that's seen to go places


Well, I admit I wouldn't want to work with Dr. Jones. It's not uncommon for Mormon academics to become true believers in something for which there is limited evidence. He does have a bit of that starry look in his eyes. It doesn't automatically tell me that his findings are false, though. His position as an outcast in the academic community allows him to conduct research most other academics won't touch with a ten foot pole for fear of losing their status. It's either let people like him conduct it, or never see it get done. Beggars can't be choosers.

Some commentaries I've been reading suggest what he found was really rust. Others suggest it may have been paint flaked off of the steel. Until the matter is settled, I'm keep following the lead to see where it goes.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy