Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
JREF says WE have too much free time on our hands?; JREF presents: MST3K, LC2 Edition
Topic Started: Jan 24 2008, 04:14 AM (1,026 Views)
exponent

dylan avery
Jan 25 2008, 12:28 AM
Your question is a decision we need to discuss as admins.
I understand, just wanted to check it was at least plausible. I'll leave it to you to decide.

I will try at some point to get a good list of errors in LCFC that I can see, I am currently going through v2 of R Mackey's paper on DRG's book.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
look-up
Member Avatar

exponent
 
look-up
 
e^n, don't ask us to provide the evidence, since we know you've seen it countless times. just admit that occam's razor is selectively used by you and your mates.

Lets start by saying that Occam's razor proves nothing and is simply a useful tool in determining which is a more likely theory. Even so you make some very strange claims, for example:


Translation: Useful only when it happens to support what you already think is true -- the official story, which usually it does not.

exponent
 
look-up
 
But they fail to isolate the collapse and analyze it on its own. By virtue of video evidence, we have over a dozen signs of demolition. And really the only thing contradicting that evidence is the pathetic skeptics, and an official government account produced by a department under the president's supervision.

It is of course ludicrous to 'isolate the collapse and analyze it on its own', the point of Occam's razor is to make as few assumptions as possible. By isolating the collapse you must make many more assumptions for any case, Occam's razor is inherently not suitable for this.


Are you seriously telling me that you didn't get what I was saying? I'm talking about the destruction of the building. YOu ahve to isolate that incident of 9/11 and analyze it on its own, without anything else entering your mind. You can't have prejudice about al-qeida or government sponsored false-flag attacks clouding your judgement.

The videos show what looks like a C.D., therefore that should be our starting point. Instead, people reject that theory since it is not compatible with what they think they know about governments and terrorism.

Instead, what so-called "skeptics" do is say, "well it may LOOk like a C.D., but that would imply that a conspiracy is afoot, and we all know how crazy that sounds"

That is NOT the definition of skepticism. That is the definition of recitation and cognative dissonance.

exponent
 
I find it interesting you claim to have 'over a dozen signs of demolition', because the only people I know to make this claim are ae911truth except they claim less than a dozen and approximately half of them are entirely wrong. Perhaps you could list 'over a dozen'?


Although this is a new forum, I am hardly compelled to beat this particularly dead horse with the evidence it is not willing to even consider.

Face it E, you're adopting an extremely complex and speculative theory of collapse because the more simple one, is not compatible with your worldview.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mumin

People actually read that crap?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
exponent

look-up
 
Instead, what so-called "skeptics" do is say, "well it may LOOk like a C.D., but that would imply that a conspiracy is afoot, and we all know how crazy that sounds"

Can you give a single example? I don't know of any skeptic (maybe Troy from WV but he is a constant annoyance and hardly a perfect example) who suggests that simply the existence of a conspiracy is enough to discredit something. Not at all.

look-up
 
Face it E, you're adopting an extremely complex and speculative theory of collapse because the more simple one, is not compatible with your worldview.

I don't know how best to respond to this as you are clearly under the impression that a controlled demolition theory contains less assumptions than a 'natural fire and collapse' theory. Such a thing is in principle illogical, we know for certain that.
  • The building was on fire
  • The building suffered impacts from WTC1
  • Firefighters independently assessed the building as being in danger

Very few assumptions need to be made to get from this point to a 'natural' collapse, indeed it may be as little as a single column failure being the only assumption to be made. On the other hand we must at the very least assume the existence of controlled demolition charges to account for your theory, this alone would put them on an equal standing and the assumptions about when it was rigged, why the initiation took over 5 seconds (east penthouse and progression), why there are no sounds of demolition explosives etc would easily tip the balance in my favour..

The fact you clearly believe that 'controlled demolition' requires less assumptions is something we should discuss. Can you list the assumptions you can imagine for both theories and we will try to create an intersection?
Edited by exponent, Jan 26 2008, 12:35 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Andoo Inc.
Member Avatar
Sir finds a lot
In the NIST report I really only saw one picture of the side view of where the collapse happened. They were talking about how the vertical supports collapsed which lead to the horizontal supports to collapse. Don't you think we need more pictures of the steel than that. I saw a lot of overhead shots around the 70 something columns. Do we know how much debris hit wtc 7
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
alexvegas
Member Avatar
alex25smash
exponent
Jan 24 2008, 08:49 PM
alexvegas
Jan 24 2008, 09:42 AM
exponent
Jan 24 2008, 05:37 AM
alexvegas
Jan 24 2008, 05:00 AM
and manipulate the evidence to point to the truth they see fit
Could you give an example?
"Pull it meant pull the firefighting operation"

Not a direct quotation but an oft cited point.
How exactly is this manipulation? That is by far the most parsimonious explanation
The fact that the firefighting operation had been 'pulled' several hours earlier (different accounts put it around 11:30am and around 2:30pm) kinda disputes that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic »
Add Reply