Zeitgeist, 9/11, and Other Conspiracies

[Thor]

We should stop calling them Truthers, such an insult to the word truth.

[photon]

Waay back in the thread there was talk about the legal case of the military guy not wanting to go to Iraq because Obama isn't qualified to be president... An update:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_288814.html

"(Rhodes) has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as president of the United States," Land states in his order. "Instead, she uses her complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the president is 'an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.'" In an interview with Talking Points Memo, Taitz said she would keep fighting if Rhodes wanted to, despite the judge's threat. "Listen, Nelson Mandela stayed in prison for years in order to get to the truth and justice," she said.

[peter12]

I've got a FB friend that posted this on my wall. Now I study political philosophy, not sciency stuff like engineering or physics. Can someone help me destroy this fool?

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article13528.html

[photon]

Ugh.. the problem with this stuff is it takes longer to go through a bunch of claims and assertions and research them and address them that it does to make them up.

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/art...uilding-seven/
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


Some places to start.

Or if you want to engage some people who've been over this stuff for a long long time you might try here:

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

They have a links section too:
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

[Canuck-Hater]

Building 7 was an implosion. Clearly that was controlled but I think they just decided to bring it down anyways since they lost most of the WTC already. We all know a couple pieces of huge debris crashing into building 7 wouldn't be enough to cause it to collapse. Its common sense really.

[photon]

Common sense doesn't equip with the necessary knowledge and experience to make that judgment. Otherwise anyone could build a building, you wouldn't have to go to school and work at it for years and years before you are trusted with designing something as complex as a building.

WTC7 wasn't an implosion, the debris field was much wider than a controlled demolition.

It not only had a huge chunk taken out of it from debris of the main towers, it had fires raging across most of it unchecked for almost the whole time.

Don't be foolish.

[CaptainCrunch]

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Building 7 discussion

This to me doesn't look like a controlled demolition

This is taken from the North East the building is tilting to the south



Half way through the collapse, look at the building seperation, tilting more the the south



Note the debris field from building 7, it actually crosses the road and does damage to buildings accross the street, thats not a controlled collapse

[Gozer]

Of course they couldn't make it look like a controlled demolition you silly sheeple!

[CaptainCrunch]

You know, I was talking to former president Bush this morning, and I says "George" and he says "Captain"

And I says, "I can't keep my role in 9/11 quiet any longer"

And he says "Whut?"

and I says "Look George . . . I know that you know that I know that you know that we did something very bad, but we made it look too much like a naturally occuring event. If we had gone out of our way to really make it look like a controlled demolition, and used cruise missiles instead of those remote control planes, and had huge explosions, and maybe a star destroyer straffing New York, then people would have questioned that it was Osama Bin Laden (CIA plant Bob Jeffries of Boston) did it. This was done too perfectly, and I need $10.00 to keep my mouth shut"

And George says "Captain Texas is gonna kick your a$$ if y'all don't keep your trapper keeper shut"

And then the call was inturrupted, and I was beamed onto an alien space craft where I was viciously probed for nigh on 5 hours

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by photon

Common sense doesn't equip with the necessary knowledge and experience to make that judgment. Otherwise anyone could build a building, you wouldn't have to go to school and work at it for years and years before you are trusted with designing something as complex as a building.

WTC7 wasn't an implosion, the debris field was much wider than a controlled demolition.

It not only had a huge chunk taken out of it from debris of the main towers, it had fires raging across most of it unchecked for almost the whole time.

Don't be foolish.

Watch the dam video footage. CLEARLY an implosion.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Watch the dam video footage. CLEARLY an implosion.

What?

[Canuck-Hater]

I dont effin care. A magazine written for kids doesnt have me convinced. I have my opinion and you "debunkers" can have yours.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

I dont effin care. A magazine written for kids doesnt have me convinced. I have my opinion and you "debunkers" can have yours.

Your expertise on engineering, architecture and demolishing of buildings obviously has us beat.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Watch the dam video footage. CLEARLY an implosion.

Sure because there can never be an event that has two different causes but look similar...

I have watched the video footage, it doesn't look like an implosion to me because it doesn't fall straight down into its footprint.

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

I dont effin care. A magazine written for kids doesnt have me convinced. I have my opinion and you "debunkers" can have yours.

Opinions are like bellybuttons, everyone has one and you having a different one doesn't make you special.

The only difference is some opinions have evidence to support them and some do not.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by photon

Sure because there can never be an event that has two different causes but look similar...

I have watched the video footage, it doesn't look like an implosion to me because it doesn't fall straight down into its footprint.



Opinions are like bellybuttons, everyone has one and you having a different one doesn't make you special.

The only difference is some opinions have evidence to support them and some do not.

Actually some of the conspiracy videos do have evidence. Like the debunkers, they also get testimonials from engineers and architects.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Actually some of the conspiracy videos do have evidence. Like the debunkers, they also get testimonials from engineers and architects.

No...they really don't. What they have are theories.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Watch the dam video footage. CLEARLY an implosion.

With all due respect, with the way that the debris was wide spread and the building falling the way it did, you either don't know what an actual implosion looks and acts like, or George Bush's conspiracy of 10,000 was built around the most incompetent demolition experts ever.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Actually some of the conspiracy videos do have evidence. Like the debunkers, they also get testimonials from engineers and architects.

No they have theories based on customized heavily edited information and Wild A##ed guesses.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

Actually some of the conspiracy videos do have evidence. Like the debunkers, they also get testimonials from engineers and architects.

What evidence? Looking at a video and saying "see this (insert feature), this could only have been caused by (insert speculation)" isn't evidence. Asking "why didn't this happen, or what are the chances of this happening, or why is this question unanswered" isn't evidence.

Even testimonials aren't very good evidence. People don't remember things perfectly to begin with, and memories can easily change over time.

Videos as a format do not lend themselves to presenting evidence. There's a reason journals are written and not a debate or not a video presentation. Videos are good though at presenting lots of short simple phrases with mood music which communicate a seemingly compelling argument by manipulating the emotions and avoiding reason. It's like preaching; there's a reason it works on people.

So rather than all those things which are good at stirring emotions and convincing a human mind, a real investigation requires real evidence. So that when someone makes a claim like "the towers were built to withstand a full impact of a fully loaded 707 at full speed", evidence is required to substantiate that claim.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by photon

What evidence? Looking at a video and saying "see this (insert feature), this could only have been caused by (insert speculation)" isn't evidence. Asking "why didn't this happen, or what are the chances of this happening, or why is this question unanswered" isn't evidence.

Even testimonials aren't very good evidence. People don't remember things perfectly to begin with, and memories can easily change over time.

Videos as a format do not lend themselves to presenting evidence. There's a reason journals are written and not a debate or not a video presentation. Videos are good though at presenting lots of short simple phrases with mood music which communicate a seemingly compelling argument by manipulating the emotions and avoiding reason. It's like preaching; there's a reason it works on people.

So rather than all those things which are good at stirring emotions and convincing a human mind, a real investigation requires real evidence. So that when someone makes a claim like "the towers were built to withstand a full impact of a fully loaded 707 at full speed", evidence is required to substantiate that claim.

Bottom line for me is that the "Truthers" keep calling for a new investigation, but they haven't shown a single compelling piece of evidence based in trial level evidence that warrants a new investigation.