aflanigan wrote: 

I did not tell you to view it, only not to respond unless you did.  I do not want you to waste your time as you evidently are by replying to my post on this subject. Perhaps you should take your own advice. You might even say that this type of exchange would encourage me to post topics like this just to irritate you and for no other reason.  Heck, someone may even make the accusation that I may have even done such a thing in the past, all I can say is that is theoretically possible.

 kurtster wrote:Bullshit.

They have signatories on their online petition that are psychology majors, electrical engineers, semiconductor technology engineers, etc. You tell me how someone with a psychology degree becomes a "licensed, certified working engineer"?

As Robert Park said, a PhD is not an innoculation against foolishness.

 sirdroseph wrote: 

So you admit that you don't care to invest your time in verifying the validity of the "straight science" you claim to find in this propaganda, but you want me to waste my time viewing it? Nice!!

Here's a simple two-pronged logical construct, which can be expressed thus:

If A=true, and B=True, then C=True

If A=True, and B=False, then C=False

Postulate A states that my time is precious, and should not be wasted.

Postulate B states that I will live forever.

Postulate C states that it is all right for me to spend time on pointless activities.

Do the math.

 Lazy8 wrote: 

Says you.  75% of my post here are during slow times when I am at work and the post you refer to do not include many words from me, just passing along other post I think are interesting.  A hobby is something you do on your free time.  Just a couple of corrections for you.

sirdroseph wrote:
A couple of corrections:

This isn't  a PBS movie, it's a video by a 9/11 conspiracy group.

They aren't simply stating physics, they are making fairly ignorant claims about what happened that day and then asserting that what they described was impossible. Yes, what they described was impossible...because what they described isn't what happened.

What happened has been extremely well documented and it isn't that hard to find. This isn't  "everything about what happened that day" but it's enough to discard ridiculously implausible claims, like explosives/thermite being used to demolish WTC 1, 2, and 7 without actual evidence that that happened.

But even that focuses a bit too closely on the claims being insinuated here. Explosives at the WTC are only one rather small element of the picture they're hinting at. Those invisible demolition teams had to time their undetected activity to coincide with the crashes of two airliners (never mind the other two that crashed that day). Did the invisible demo teams hijack the airliners, or did they just randomly rig up all of the world's largest buildings, hoping that one day they'd get to blow them up? Because, you know...crashing huge airplanes into huge buildings just isn't enough of an impact. You really need them to fall down, and you need an empty building nearby to collapse later that day to really drive the point home.

Are the rest of the world's largest buildings rigged up too, waiting for their big moment? Because otherwise the demolition of the WTC doesn't explain enough. If bombs (not airplanes) brought those buildings down you need to explain the coincidental arrival of two large airplanes.

As for not being "really into conspiracy theories"...you may not spend much time researching them but you spend an awful lot of words propagating them. Just a suggestion: maybe you should reverse that priority. Or get a new hobby.

 Lazy8 wrote: 

I'm going to say the same thing sird said ... all's I know is that two planes flew into two buildings and three buildings collapsed.  After that, its anybody's ball game.

I watched only the first 17 minutes and stopped at the end of the discussion on WT 7.  And that is all I'm going to comment on.  Any report that has 1500 licensed, certified and working engineers all signing onto is worth consideration.  My Father was a State of California Licensed Architect and also a member of the AIA.  California basically has the toughest and highest standards for building achitecture and construction on the planet, for obvious and demonstrated reasons.  People of this level of skill generally are not chumps or lackies.  Not making anything personal here, just sayin' so conversationally.

These 1500 men and women would not be asking these questions if they had answers.  The answers are clearly lacking from the official report. 

I'll let you worry about the who or why.  Its not my concern in any way that rules my life.  If you wish to dismiss this as propaganda put out by a bunch of chumps with a specific agenda, go for it.  I'm not.

It will just remain an unresolved mystery to me.  For some reason you wish to consider it a fully resolved matter.  I'm honestly curious for your reasons on that, if indeed my conclusion of the forementioned sentence is correct.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I have no idea what happened other than 2 planes flew into the buildings, that is all I know. I did not insist anything at all or making any claims one way or the other. I just posted this interesting PBS movie and was impressed by its lack of grandoise conspiracy theories and impressive lineup of Architects and engineers simply stating physics and building structure and behavior.  I am glad you know everything about what happened that day, good for you, I clearly do not and probably never will.

Edit: and it is obvious that I am way behind the curve on this subject because I am not really into conspiracy theories, spend very little time researching them and only post random things that others post when I find it interesting (at least I did watch it).  Apparently a lot of people have been spending a lot of time covering this, quite frankly I only have a passing interest in virtually everything really that does not directly pertain to my life and immediate sphere of influence of things that I can control.  I apologize for my lack of passion on this subject that clearly some people have on both sides and I solemnly promise at some point I will do it again.

sirdroseph wrote:
It is nothing of the kind. It is the same package of inuendoes, half-truths, and outright lies we've been hearing from the conspiracy industry since 9/11/2001.

It starts with one of the favorite gambits, the collapse of WTC 7, and repeats the same false claims the conspiracy industry has been spewing all along—that the fires in WTC 7 were minor, that the damage from the crashes was slight, that the collapse took very little time. All of these are false, and easily proven so. Here's a good place to start your own (no doubt thoughtful and rigorous) investigation into these claims.

It continues with out-of-context quotes from the NIST report about the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, which I've read. (Have you?) There are the usual long-debunked claims of molten steel free-fall collapses.

There is absolutely nothing new here, no fresh evidence, no new information at all. Just the usual insistence that some ominous truth (which they never reveal) must be being covered up.

I'm going to repeat the question no conspiracy theorist has ever dared answer, even tho they all insist the answer is obvious: what do you think happened?

Tell us what happened. Don't just insist that some other story is false, tell us what did happen. I want you to put forth a theory that can be verified, proved true or false. If the fires caused by the impacts of airliners didn't bring down the buildings, what did, and how was this arranged without anyone seeing it?

If you want an investigation that isn't tainted by involvement with the government do one. Don't insist that someone else (especially the government that is blamed—only by insinuation, never outright—for the collapses) do it. That government already did one. It was exhaustive. It was conducted by people far more knowledgeable than anyone in this video, eminent folks in engineering and academia. You don't believe it. Why would you believe another one?

I could go on and on, and in earlier posts I have. I've been to the bottom of the rabbit hole you're peeking out of. If you're not interested in reading all that I'm not interested in repeating it.

But I'm also not interested in seeing this toxic hoax spread. So make your claim..

 mutepoint wrote: 

Who makes sense ?  Not the nutjobs featured to be sure.

Like I said, neither truther nor birther, but I spent 10 minutes with your vid considering it before commenting and basically agreeing with the premise laid out by P & T.

I am also willing to spend an hour in the same spirit listening to architects and engineers who are not magicians or atheists.  Then I will comment on that vid as well.  But not before watching it.

 aflanigan wrote: 
So you shoot the messenger without considering the message ?  Because you and many others are satisfied with the gov explanation, all should be satisfied.

Neither truther nor birther here.  So what you're saying is that the official gov investigation into 9 / 11 is good as gold, leaves no room for doubt and speculation, that its finding are final and irrefutable, leaving no further need for further questioning on the subject ?

Or in other words case closed and all who still question the matter are ... what ?

I plan on watching the vid.  I'm not afraid to invest a little time to see if someone is making sense or not. 

 aflanigan wrote: 
And it is obvious that you did not see it by your comments.  So feel free to ignore me or post whatever snarky remarks you wish and I will take the same amount of time and care towards them as you did towards the video.

 sirdroseph wrote: 

If it's a simple movie review from an entertainment standpoint you want, call Gene Shalit.

Looking for "straight up" science in a video produced by somebody with an axe to grind is like looking for a diamond engagement ring in a cereal box.

Movies like "Loose Change" and the one you are proffering (no doubt after having carefully scrutinized the various claims they make in it for plausibility, correct?) are propaganda.

If you have a specific aspect of the truthers' supposed science you want to discuss (like the "faster than free fall" collapse claim, or the "melted steel" claim, or "pull the building" regarding WTC7), just list it in plain writing. Then we can point you to one of the many topics on this subject here in the forums where that topic has been discussed ad nauseum.

 aflanigan wrote: 

Are you in the habit of giving opinions and critiques on movies that you have not watched? BTW, what exactly will you be basing your opinions on without viewing the source of what you are critiquing?   Yes, that is precisely what I am saying.   I will give a dissertation on Lord of the Rings which I have never seen and you can tell me how I did. Of course I will be making it up since I have not seen it, but who knows it may be entertaining.

 sirdroseph wrote: 

Wow. So if I refuse to watch your propaganda, then my opinions have no validity, regardless of what they are based on?

What a charming way to begin a conversation!

This is nothing but straight up science by nothing but experts.  Either watch it or don't.  You are welcome to comment and make snide remarks all you want, but if you did not watch the video, your remarks have as much weight and validity as many of the crazy conspiracy theories that we all like to make fun of:

 bokey wrote: 
That's a squib wrapped in thermite, thank you very much!

Actually I did this:

Posted: Aug 7, 2011 - 10:27pm in Re-elect Barack Obama in 2012?

and lo and behold, back came this:

Posted: Aug 12, 2011 - 11:00pm in Re-elect Barack Obama in 2012?

How could I resist?

 Servo wrote: 
Is it just a coinkydink that you and Lophreakydude show up at the same time for strawmanship, or is that a banana in your pants?

 BlueHeronDruid wrote: 
It suits me fine.

"Come one, come all!  Come on in and make a fool of yourself!

Admission is free, just check your dignity at the door..."

 LowPhreak wrote: 
So you've read the previous 9-11 conspiracy thread?

OK then, what, in your opinion, do you find fault with that I wrote.  Please provide direct links to the posts.


Anybody can make claims.  The hard part is proving them.

You have absolutely no credibility.

There.  Now neither of us has any credibility.  We're on even footing.

Thing is...a person's credibility has nothing to do with the truth of words.

What if I've been plagiarizing the words of a person who you hold to be unquestionably credible?

That sure would put you in a bad spot, wouldn't it?  You could throw away your own belief system, and impugn your own credibility with yourself, just to spite a person.  That would sure be nasty self-inflicted wound!  But if you admitted, even if only to yourself, that the words that I wrote have merit, then that would make you wrong...a fool...a sucker!

It looks like you got yourself stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 LowPhreak wrote: 
My responses are of no consequence as long as you continue to dodge all responsibility for backing your own words with facts.  I don't think that you can.


You haven't proved anything.  So by definition, all of your claims still remain allegations, and nothing more.


Then you should have no problem presenting that "established fact".

But where is it?  Why do you continue to expend so much energy evading what you claim should be child's play to prove?


And what if I hadn't?  Would that make you any more right?  No, it would not!

Your claim, your burden of proof.


If these alleged reasons are so obvious, as you claim, then you should be well acquainted with them, correct?

Tell me those "reasons", right here, for all to read.


Well, those are serious allegations.  The very least you can do while making those allegations is to provide a direct quote.  Please provide that quote, and prove that you're not a liar.


That is a good synopsis of what I question about your claims.  What do you think is so special about 9-11 that you can just ignore the very foundations of our existence?  Isn't it true that if gravity suddenly failed to work on 9-11, that that alone would have become a far more earth-shaking story than any terrorist attack?


OK fine.  That's what I expect all losers to do: run away.

Let me leave you with a parting question:  If it's of so little importance to you now, what made it so important to you that you invested no small amount of time and words posting your original manifesto?