Ultimate 911 POLL

[bogan]

There is a huge number of highly qualified people who strongly dispute the "peer reviewed evidence" that you so blindly believe.

And why do you believe those who dispute that make a better case than those who put it forward. Pick one point and we can go through the evidence for that if you like. All the times I've gone through it, those who dispute it do so on their interpretation, not empirical evidence; thus moving such evidence into the latter category of little use.

[Katman]

And why do you believe those who dispute that make a better case than those who put it forward.

For a start, NIST is a government agency. Do you really expect them to say anything other than what they're told to say?

What have the likes of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth got to gain from disputing the official story - other than uncovering the truth?

[HenryDorsetCase]

And why do you believe those who dispute that make a better case than those who put it forward. Pick one point and we can go through the evidence for that if you like. All the times I've gone through it, those who dispute it do so on their interpretation, not empirical evidence; thus moving such evidence into the latter category of little use.

Ohhhhh I get it now. They're religious people. Gotcha.

[Katman]

And why do you believe those who dispute that make a better case than those who put it forward.

Why do you think that NIST refuse to disclose their computer modelling process?

Do you really think that to do so would jeopardise public safety?

Why do you think the authorities refuse to release any of the footage from security cameras around the Pentagon? (Footage that doesn't even legally belong to them).

All we've seen is a couple of frames that certainly don't provide any 'evidence' to support the official story.

[bogan]

Why do you think that NIST refuse to disclose their computer modelling process?

Do you really think that to do so would jeopardise public safety?

Why do you think the authorities refuse to release any of the footage from security cameras around the Pentagon? (Footage that doesn't even legally belong to them).

All we've seen is a couple of frames that certainly don't provide any 'evidence' to support the official story.

So, you're choosing not to go through any specifics of the evidence; skipping the important step of peer reviewed data and going straight to the far more useless motivations and who said whats approach. This is why I say the 'trush' you wish to know is unknowable, because it is not one adherent to evidence.

[Katman]

So, you're choosing not to go through any specifics of the evidence; skipping the important step of peer reviewed data and going straight to the far more useless motivations and who said whats approach. This is why I say the 'trush' you wish to know is unknowable, because it is not one adherent to evidence.

How about you show me how the failure of one single column (one of 83) could cause an entire floor area to collapse uniformly at the rate of free fall?

Here's hoping you can convince me - because NIST certainly couldn't.

[bogan]

How about you show me how the failure of one single column (one of 81) could cause an entire floor area to collapse uniformly at the rate of free fall.

You must first show me the evidence of uniform collapse at freefall speeds and that only one column failed to initiate it, to ensure the correct context.

[Katman]

You must first show me the evidence of uniform collapse at freefall speeds and that only one column failed to initiate it, to ensure the correct context.

Have you not seen the video? Where have you been - asleep?



Bear in mind that the collapse you can see with your very own eyes does not at all resemble the computer animation that NIST presented that shows the building buckling and twisting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNEKtvB80us

(And the one column failure theory is NIST's official story).

[unstuck]

[bogan]

Have you not seen the video? Where have you been - asleep?



Bear in mind that the collapse you can see with your very own eyes does not at all resemble the computer animation that NIST presented that shows the building buckling and twisting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNEKtvB80us

(And the one column failure theory is NIST's official story).

I've seen many, but they are not evidence, I can't judge freefall acceleration and uniformity from a video; where is the peer reviewed video analysis?

So why does NIST think it was a single column failure then? To gather evidence properly, we must back track to ensure all assumptions are correct in the scope we use them.

[Katman]

I've seen many, but they are not evidence, I can't judge freefall acceleration and uniformity from a video; where is the peer reviewed video analysis?

So why does NIST think it was a single column failure then?

Good question. You should probably ask them.

[yokel]

I've seen many, but they are not evidence, I can't judge freefall acceleration and uniformity from a video; where is the peer reviewed video analysis?

So why does NIST think it was a single column failure then? To gather evidence properly, we must back track to ensure all assumptions are correct in the scope we use them.

so the videos of the planes hitting the towers are not evidence ether?? hahahahahaha you're fucking moron.

"I can't judge freefall acceleration and uniformity from a video" you obviously cant judge anything from anything unless there's a peer reviewed study on it.

what they are telling you to believe CLEARLY doesn't match the videos, but you're to stupid to see it.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I only like this thread for the cars. Not sure what I am more turned on by, the busty wench and the (?) Ferrari? or the Tom Selleck-alike perched on the Escort Mexico.

I did see a Mk 2 Escort rally special thing the other day which was really tidy.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Cool flying truck pic

That's gonna hurt when it lands. any video?

[HenryDorsetCase]

OK, engaging with conspiracy theorists is a hiding to nothing. They are not rational and no matter what the actual evidence is it won't matter because their position will not change. Same as arguing with any religion-blind person, or a Moon landing doubter, or a young-earth creationist (or fuckwit as the technical term is). Giggle, point and laugh and move on. Or post more cool car pics -with or without busy wenches or pointy sweater meats.

A final point, and why people like Dawkins dont get into debates with them: "Well, it would look good on your CV, but not mine."