Reasons not to steal cables

[skenk]

'Crazy' claims or theories are often 'backed up' by what appears to be respectable scientific investigation and research - but the interesting thing is that when people attempt to replicate such investigation or research, they generally find that they can't.

True but the experiments on the WTC dust have been, and are repeatable. AFAIK all the evidence and research by ae911truth.org is genuine and repeatable/verifiable.

It's also true that the crazy claims of complete-destruction-in-a-few-seconds of a steel building by fire do not stand up to any meaningful scrutiny. There is abundant evidence of melted steel, if you can find any experiments where this has been achieved with hydrocarbon fires burning in open air, I'll admit I am wrong.

The 1500+ architects and engineers who have staked their reputations are not a bunch off loonies and nut-jobs. They are real professionals from around the world and they are joined by: Scientists for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 truth, Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Media Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Patriots question 9/11 (ex-military), Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth and Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth (see www.911truth.org for links). They are joined by millions of us regular folk, who, until we tried to question the official line were not 'crazy' or 'loonies'.

 

[sparkticus]

'Crazy' claims or theories are often 'backed up' by what appears to be respectable scientific investigation and research - but the interesting thing is that when people attempt to replicate such investigation or research, they generally find that they can't.

That is also my strong opinion.

Homeopathic medicine makes crazy claims which are never actually proven scientifically but promoted by "anecdotal evidence" which of course is no evidence at all. Millions of people take homeopathic remedies and go to see a "homeopath" yet there is no proof at all that homeopathy works beyond the effects of placebo. It is a world where the well meaning yet deluded therapists treat the hopeful yet deluded patients creating a sub-culture of believers. These conspiracy theorists appear to be deluded in a similar way. They see expert testimonials and ex government agents spilling the beans yet there is never a single shred of real tangible evidence. What to make of it all I don't know. The real world as we know it is the miracle with many secrets still waiting for discovery yet people are so complacent with it, they feel the need to dream up acts of fiction.

In homeopathy a patient may feel better when they think they have taken a medicine tailored just for them when in fact they took nothing more than diluted water. I guess the conspiracy theorists feel better when they take something that is real but think it is not

 

[skenk]

Skenk
You seem to have absolute faith in your opinion and seem to select evidence that fits your opinion that the building was intentionally demolished.

Look at the video of the collapse. Each floor in turn explodes outwards with a lot of horizontally moving debris. Then look at a building that is demolished by controlled explosions. Compare the two.

I doubt you will see the significant difference.

Are you referring to the twin towers or building 7? They collapsed differently. Building 7 seems to show many of the characteristics of 'normal' controlled demolition. I admit I am not an 'expert' and I can't see a lot of difference, I put my faith in the experimentally-based evidence and the laws of gravity.

Each floor in turn explodes outwards

I'm not seeing that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0GW6QXKyp0
2 mins 14 secs is quite clear, very little horizontal moving debris at all.

If 'compressed air' and fire caused such a catastrophic collapse shouldn't the world be reviewing everything we previously thought we knew about building design and construction?

Can you explain how the buildings fell so quickly or the findings of the peer-reviewed paper?

I have watched and read many, many accounts of what happened, for every 'conspiracy' video/text there is the equivalent 'debunk', and then 'debunk of the debunk' . . . having reviewed so much I am now have even more faith in my beliefs. From my 'side' the evidence has to be very carefully picked over and proven, from yours (the debunkers') the evidence is extremely thin.

You are determined to only believe what you want to believe.

I could say the same of your view. I have presented some of the evidence I believe, you have said 'compressed air'. Assuming you believe the official explanations I would suggest examining the conclusions of those investigations (9/11 Commission Report and NIST) for yourself and drawing your own conclusions. The evidence for demolition is considerably more compelling than any other hypothesis put forward.

 

[skenk]

there is never a single shred of real tangible evidence.

What about the scientific paper and laws of gravity? To say nothing of the work of 100's of academics and professionals (eg Jeff Farrer, Steven Jones, Mark Basile)

 

[sparkticus]

there is never a single shred of real tangible evidence.

What about the scientific paper and laws of gravity? To say nothing of the work of 100's of academics and professionals (eg Jeff Farrer, Steven Jones, Mark Basile)

Skenk, the observation of science is pure and objective, the interpretation of science is clouded and subjective. It is absurd to even consider that 911 was somehow a huge government funded event. Testing such a hypothesis with science including the laws of gravity is just not possible. Remember the mad professor who pulled the legs off a grass hopper then asked it to jump. When it could not jump he concluded that pulling the legs off caused it to go deaf.

 

[JohnW2]

True but the experiments on the WTC dust have been, and are repeatable. AFAIK all the evidence and research by ae911truth.org is genuine and repeatable/verifiable.

In this case, it's not the analysis of the dust which is in dispute but, rather, the interpretation of what it means.

The 1500+ architects and engineers who have staked their reputations are not a bunch off loonies and nut-jobs.

That's usually the case in situations like this. Although the claims are crazy, many of the indivuals making them are often far from crazy'; as you say, they are often very respected scientists, engineers or whatever. Perhaps the most intriguing thing is that neither are they usually in any way consciously dishonest or manipulative - they are often totally sincere in their beliefs, despite presumably realising the damage to their reputations that may result.

There are, of course, now many of these campaigns about alleged 'conspiracies, 'cover ups' or whatever around - ranging from the very high profile ones like 9/11, moon landings, JFK's assassination and Roswell to hundreds, if not thousands, of others. One thing you should probably ask yourself is which (if any) of these out-on-a-limb claims has ever been ultimately proved to be correct.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

That is also my strong opinion. Homeopathic medicine makes crazy claims which are never actually proven scientifically but promoted by "anecdotal evidence" which of course is no evidence at all.

Indeed, homoeopathy is, IMO, a very good example. The proponents acknowledge that the degree of dilution of their medicines is such that it is very unlikely that any given bottle contains any molecules of the actual drug at all (i.e. it is pure water). However, they see this as no problem, citing the fact that all the shaking up with drug during the dilution process results in some 'non-understood changes' in the water molecules, which results in their acquiring medicinal properties. Traditionally, this would, of course, be regarded as 'nonsense', but the modern 'nothing is impossible'/'keep an open mind' attitude is such that it has been far from dismissed. If their claims were true, it would, of course, become necessary to re-write most physics and chemistry textbooks, and drastically revise our ideas about the laws of physics etc.!

Over the years, I've been involved in a number of attempts to undertake proper independent trials of homeopathic remedies, but on every occasion the exercercise has failed because of spanners thrown into the works by proponents of homeopathy (some co-operation from whom is necessary in order to conduct such trials).

In homeopathy a patient may feel better when they think they have taken a medicine tailored just for them when in fact they took nothing more than diluted water.

This is the problem. Not only 'feel better', but actually recover from serious diseases in some case. To a 'conventionalist' like myself, by far the most likely explanation is that it works because they believe in it ('mind over matter' can be very powerful) - 'placebo effect'if you like. This means one has to be very careful when 'knocking' things like that, since if one destroy people's faith in it, they may actually suffer.

Kind Regards, John.

 

[Wontdothatagain]

So that i understand this properly, you are saying that a group of people, sponsored by the US government broke into both WTC's + the other building that fell and planted a load of explosives and it would need to be a shed load to create the right effect and drill a load of holes in the supporting pillars or wrap it around them and not be noticed.

They then convinced a group of fanatics to hijack 4 planes, 2 of which fly into the towers. They hit in just the right place because if they flew into the section that contained the explosives, they almost certainly would not of gone off.

Then the government man triggered the explosives after the appropriate wait and the buildings fell exactly how they wanted.

They keep all this under wraps for quite a while, remember, the pilots were training in the US 2 years prior to the attack so they were probably planning this for about 4 years and not 1 word leaked out, nobody raised concern's, threat levels were not raised, nothing, or was this hushed up as well?

After the attack, they get a load of independent scientists to all conclude that it was failings in the building structure that led to the building to fail, not a load of bombs?

Does not not sound a little bit improbable?

 

[sparkticus]

To a 'conventionalist' like myself, by far the most likely explanation is that it works because they believe in it ('mind over matter' can be very powerful) - 'placebo effect'if you like. This means one has to be very careful when 'knocking' things like that, since if one destroy people's faith in it, they may actually suffer.

Oh I would not knock it. Actually I think homeopathy sometimes works and works beyond that of the effect of placebo but in the same vein as my mad professor and his deaf grasshopper, it does not work in the way that homeopaths insist that it does. In my opinion it has nothing to do with what is in the dilution - the law of similar's etc where the symptoms of the ailment are treated with a remedy that might cause similar symptoms during a "proving" in an otherwise healthy individual. That, in my opinion is a lot of nonsense before you even get to the magnitude of serial dilution of the "active" substance. I think there is a difference between walking into the pharmacist and taking a "self prescribed" homeopathic remedy (which may have a pure placebo effect) to that of consulting with a homeopath. The homeopath attempts to take a patient on a health/emotional-journey during the homeopathic conversation. The patient is afforded the self indulgence of steering the conversation triggered by non-prejudiced questioning. During the journey the patient may have an epiphany in terms of realising when symptoms of an underlying illness may have initiated, where their life was at that time, what was going on in their life with all sorts of things including personal relationships. The patient may then "shift" their perspective on the illness and see the illness (perhaps for the first time) as something they can manage and perhaps even beat! At the end of the consultation a remedy is usually prescribed but I suspect taking the remedy only serves to "press the start button" in terms of the patient further re-orientating their subconsious thoughts on their own illness. If "real doctors" practised a more meaningful bed manner (I do realise they get very busy) then they might be able to reduce the amount of real biochemical medicine sometimes prescribed in a hurry without too much evidence basis.

 

[sparkticus]

Over the years, I've been involved in a number of attempts to undertake proper independent trials of homeopathic remedies, but on every occasion the exercercise has failed because of spanners thrown into the works by proponents of homeopathy (some co-operation from whom is necessary in order to conduct such trials).

The materia medica contains a list of "symptoms" for each homeopathic medicine. Instead of trying to prove efficacy in the traditional sense - double blind trials etc then looking at the very grey area of "did the patients condition improve - were symptoms eleviated" Why not play homeopathy at its own game? they have made it simple with the materia medica.

Take a group of otherwise healthy people and expose them to a proving.
If the materia medica is accurate and true then it reflects real symptoms reported by real people after taking a remedy. If this can be scientifically reproduced (statistics included) then homeopathy has a case does it not? If not (and I suspect it is an if-not) then homeopathy surely has no basic axiom does it not?

 

[Gavin77]

Can you explain why fire (organic...) can cause the total and symmetric collapse of ANY steel building? This has never, ever happened unless you believe the official lies of 9/11, despite there being many examples of much hotter and longer fires gutting lesser steel buldings - which do NOT then suffer a complete collapse.

Were you watching a different 9/11 to the rest of us that day? You think its a conspiracy because FIRE alone cannot cause a building collapse? You don't think that fact that the structure was SEVERELY COMPROMISED by the aircraft impact might have played some part in the collapse?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Does not not sound a little bit improbable?

Apparently not.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In more recent times, in the name of 'having an open mind', we have so often seen intelligent people who 'know' that something is nonsense having to adopt the 'nothing is impossible' position.

Bas philosopy - unmediated by a fearful desire to use mincing words:

If it sounds like f*****g b****cks it is.

 

[JohnW2]

Bas philosopy - unmediated by a fearful desire to use mincing words:
If it sounds like f*****g b****cks it is.

On this occasion, I have no argument with your philosophy!

Kind Regards, John.

 

[JohnW2]

In my opinion it has nothing to do with what is in the dilution - the law of similar's etc where the symptoms of the ailment are treated with a remedy that might cause similar symptoms during a "proving" in an otherwise healthy individual. That, in my opinion is a lot of nonsense before you even get to the magnitude of serial dilution of the "active" substance.

Those may be 'your opinions', but I can assure you that you are by no means alone in holding them!

I think there is a difference between walking into the pharmacist and taking a "self prescribed" homeopathic remedy (which may have a pure placebo effect) to that of consulting with a homeopath. The homeopath attempts to take a patient on a health/emotional-journey during the homeopathic conversation. ... At the end of the consultation a remedy is usually prescribed but I suspect taking the remedy only serves to "press the start button" in terms of the patient further re-orientating their subconsious thoughts on their own illness. If "real doctors" practised a more meaningful bed manner (I do realise they get very busy) then they might be able to reduce the amount of real biochemical medicine sometimes prescribed in a hurry without too much evidence basis.

I don't think many conventional ('allopathic') doctors would disagree with that - but, as you say, pressures on time/resources are such that 'chemical bullets' are often all that can realistically be offered. You only have to look at 'the private sector', where consulattions may be 30-60 minutes, rather than 5-10 minutes (or less) to see doctors doing what they'd like to have time to do.

Kind Regards,
John