| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cunning_stunt
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:37 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I agree that there is such a thing as a "whaco" conspiracy theorist . Alex jones is one . But there are some really good rational reasons to question certain things and not to dismiss everything thrown under this "name net" .
For example I always find it ironic that the scientific community stands behind the Nist version of 9/11 , when it is clear to any rational scientific person that Nist has not employed the scientific method . They have worked from a conclusion , and tried to fit and manipulate the data to fit it . They have flat out ignored data that does not fit their model and have "debunked" other theories using nothing more than alternative hypothesis that have no evidence whatsoever ....They did not test for controlled demolition yet posture as if they are positioned to refute this theory . Their pancake theory which the entire scientific community stood behind , they since had to throw out , so why would they still keep faith in Nist with their new Bizant theory of collapse when they clearly have no credibility and an obvious agenda ?
Science can't work with an agenda . I don't have any opinions about what happened on 9/11 ...but I am 100% sure the investigations were not scientific and operated with an agenda .You draw you own conclusions to what that means . I don't want to debate 9/11 with anyone here because I'm sure no one here has the facts or intelligence and will probably throw outdated and redundant nonsense like the popular mechanice article which was one big straw man argument . I don't have the time or the patience to deal with your inadequate research into the matter , nor your small minded highly flawed perception that you are on the side of science .You are not . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cunning_stunt wrote: |
| I don't have the time or the patience to deal with your inadequate research into the matter , nor your small minded highly flawed perception that you are on the side of science .You are not . |
I am on the side of science, actually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cunning_stunt wrote: |
For example I always find it ironic that the scientific community stands behind the Nist version of 9/11 , |
Thanks for sharing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunning_stunt
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Thanks for sharing. |
I'd reciprocate if i could honestly , but I can't . What you said by no stretch of the imagination qualifies as interesting , witty , funny or poignant in any sense of any of those words , or could ever qualify for thanks . We are all in fact more stupid for having read it . You can give me an apology but can you give me my time back ???? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunning_stunt
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I am on the side of science, actually. |
If you are banking with NIST in the context of how towers fell on september the 11th , 2001 ....nope . You're not . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harpeau
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think Cunning makes a good point about 9/11. The problem with discussing anything on here is that it turns into IPR and people are suddenly at each others throats like a bad bench clear at the hockey game!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cunning_stunt wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I am on the side of science, actually. |
If you are banking with NIST in the context of how towers fell on september the 11th , 2001 ....nope . You're not . |
I'm on the side of every independent technical and scientific society that has looked into it and found nothing to doubt that the towers fell because two planes smacked into them.
So. Yes. Better luck next time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunning_stunt
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm on the side of every independent technical and scientific society that has looked into it and found nothing to doubt that the towers fell because two planes smacked into them.
So. Yes. Better luck next time. |
Did you miss the part where I said I was not interested in discussing this with people who did not have the facts and/or intellect ?
Firstly that's an outright lie....there are MANY , MANYpapers currenly up for peer review that contradict the official versio of events...
You obviously have neither the facts not the intelligence . But here are some hints .
-3 towers fell against the path of maximum resistance into themselves at near free fall speed , raping the laws of physics .
-No investigation , bar those proposing controlled demolition , has proposed anything close to proving ANYTHING ...at best they have proposed highly unlikely scenarious that require high leaps of faith and ignoring of factual evidence to "work"...for you to say something akin to
"they have proposed watertight theories that align with the data and explain in a reasonable sense that the towers fell from fires and plane impaces " is ignorant at best , but more likely stupid to be honest ....
- Traces of thermate , the ridiculously impossible nature of the collapses due to gravity , damage and fires , molten metal and the mountain of evidence that exists strongly suggest controlled demoltion ......even if you don't accept this 100% , if you were a rational , scientific person you would have to admit that it is worth studying.....yet NISt refuses to consider this obvious explanation...
occams razor states in science we should always consider the simplest hypothesis....id you knew anything at all about physics you'd know that controlled demolition by a country mile represents the easiest explanation .....steel and concrete buildings do not just fall into themselves at near free fall speed contradicting the laws of physics ......
The real conspiracy theorists are people like yourselves who somehow think the laws of physics took a holiday for these 3 towers on september 11th ....
science ? You people with your subjective distortortions , emotive rationale and obvious agenda ? Don't make me laugh !! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cunning_stunt wrote: |
| Quote: |
I'm on the side of every independent technical and scientific society that has looked into it and found nothing to doubt that the towers fell because two planes smacked into them.
So. Yes. Better luck next time. |
Did you miss the part where I said I was not interested in discussing this with people who did not have the facts and/or intellect ?
Firstly that's an outright lie....there are MANY , MANYpapers currenly up for peer review that contradict the official versio of events...
You obviously have neither the facts not the intelligence . But here are some hints .
-3 towers fell against the path of maximum resistance into themselves at near free fall speed , raping the laws of physics .
-No investigation , bar those proposing controlled demolition , has proposed anything close to proving ANYTHING ...at best they have proposed highly unlikely scenarious that require high leaps of faith and ignoring of factual evidence to "work"...for you to say something akin to
"they have proposed watertight theories that align with the data and explain in a reasonable sense that the towers fell from fires and plane impaces " is ignorant at best , but more likely stupid to be honest ....
- Traces of thermate , the ridiculously impossible nature of the collapses due to gravity , damage and fires , molten metal and the mountain of evidence that exists strongly suggest controlled demoltion ......even if you don't accept this 100% , if you were a rational , scientific person you would have to admit that it is worth studying.....yet NISt refuses to consider this obvious explanation...
occams razor states in science we should always consider the simplest hypothesis....id you knew anything at all about physics you'd know that controlled demolition by a country mile represents the easiest explanation .....steel and concrete buildings do not just fall into themselves at near free fall speed contradicting the laws of physics ......
The real conspiracy theorists are people like yourselves who somehow think the laws of physics took a holiday for these 3 towers on september 11th ....
science ? You people with your subjective distortortions , emotive rationale and obvious agenda ? Don't make me laugh !! |
Since we are talking science, perhaps you could direct me to the peer reviewed science published in major journals regarding these claims above? Remember, you are on the side of science. In science, the debate is in the literature and at scientific conferences. The failure of the towers is of great interest to engineers and various scientific disciplines. Surely, if the towers fell in such a way that there is doubt about the consensus, someone would publish an alternative hypothesis in a real technical journal.
And I'm not talking web pages of claims or some scientist somewhere said something to a reporter or to a Truther conference. I'm talking real science published on in real journals.
So, got any? Real science in real peer reviewed science journals? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| occams razor states in science we should always consider the simplest hypothesis....id you knew anything at all about physics you'd know that controlled demolition by a country mile represents the easiest explanation .....steel and concrete buildings do not just fall into themselves at near free fall speed contradicting the laws of physics ...... |
I hate to embarrass you but you are confused about occam's razor. Occam's razor states one does not multiply entities needlessly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
So let me suggest before we invent a new entity (say demolition crews accessing the WTC to set up explosives) we follow occam's razor and don't invent them until we've exhausted the known entity of planes flying into buildings.
Anyway, I await your peer reviewed papers on the matter, Mr. Science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunning_stunt
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Since we are talking science, perhaps you could direct me to the peer reviewed science published in major journals regarding these claims above? Remember, you are on the side of science. In science, the debate is in the literature and at scientific conferences. The failure of the towers is of great interest to engineers and various scientific disciplines. Surely, if the towers fell in such a way that there is doubt about the consensus, someone would publish an alternative hypothesis in a real technical journal.
And I'm not talking web pages of claims or some scientist somewhere said something to a reporter or to a Truther conference. I'm talking real science published on in real journals.
So, got any? Real science in real peer reviewed science journals? |
Sorry , you must have me confused for some crackpot idiot . I'm talking about science and thus falsifiable theories , not claims or "coincidences" .
In this debate both sides try and posture unproven claims as theories . firstly there is the well known matter of conspiracy theorists , who ask a lot of question but fail to provide evidence . Clearly they do not use the scientific method . On the other we have a so called scientific orginisation called NIST , who put forward highly unlikely scenarious and then make the claim that they "prove" something
This is the logical equivelent of saying " Here is a highly unlikely way the towers could have fell , that doesn't need explosions , therefore the towers fell without explosions "
You do see this point don't you ? Please answer me how this is scientific or represent the scientific method ?
Ok...papers up for peer review.....remember this is all new evidence ...if you applied the scientific method you'd realise new evidence need to pass peer review ...not just be posted in magazines and pawned onto us as "truth" like the debunking movement does....
There are currently 48 by respected scientists up for peer review....the one I've posted is at the crux of the matter and poignant to this debate......if you insist I will post more....I don't think you will read any of them , or consider the evidence....because if people like you did then a long time ago we would have recovered from this myth that NIST followed the scientific method...
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunning_stunt
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I hate to embarrass you but you are confused about occam's razor. Occam's razor states one does not multiply entities needlessly. |
You had to wikipedia it to know what it meant ? How quaint and ignorant .Also you can't withdraw the obvious latent assumptions from the idea......you're a bit thick aren't you ?
I'm a bit thick too by being so abrasive ....it's a sure way not to win anyone over . Let me clarify my position ...
I propose that the official investigations regarding 9/11 did not and do not use the scientific method . In fact they stray so far from the scientific method that it gives the strong impression that they are hell bent on meeting with a certain conclusion : that is to say they have an agenda and work from a conclusion towards their data .
Until I made this obervation , which any rational person can make , I had no reason to doubt the claims of NIST . In their stubborn refusal to deal with the simplest and most obvious explanations for how the 3 towers fell and to keep hinting at ridiculous and flawed theories like Bizants piston theories , a rational person is forced to consider exactly how objective the entire body of investigation is . In science when an experiment suffers from obvious subjective distortions , we consider it invalid . The only thing to do is to get an independant investgation which considers ammongst it's theotries that of controlled demolition .
No rational person wouldn't take issue with such a request .Are you not rational ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cunning_stunt wrote: |
I'm a bit thick |
Obviously.
| Quote: |
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/nau.asp
Finally a rational voice weighs in on the conspiracy mongering of the Alex Jones types. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cunning_stunt
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
A fine , detailed and well constructed argument . I'm sure in years to come we will remember the name "huffdaddy" amongst those of plato , sarte and the likes....a quite brilliant man...
that's one way to look at it....here is another ...
you're a talentless jerk with no redeeming features...your mediocrity is only trumped by your lameness....wow....you suck ....you will live and die without anyone noticing....the universe , the big beautiful universe just never will bother to care about you.....
....suicide is a good option ..in fact ...if there is a school of thought that says you don't deserve to die...well...they can count me out... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
