• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

9/11 Conspiracies now equivalent to Holocaust Denialism

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Brainonska511 said:
Sure you did. Now run along and let the adults talk.
Click to expand...
I'm 34, and have gained a reasonable grasp of Newtonian physics over my years. However, since you want to dismiss me as a kid, I'd simply point to an engineer who served 30 years at NASA explaining the same thing, and you can find over 1000 other architects engineers listed on that site alone who would be happy to do the same.

Granted, I don't expect everyone to have taken the same interest in physics as people like myself have, but surely you could at least just own up to being in no position to comprehend the matter? Seriously, can any of you who sparked off at my previous post at least make something resembling a mature response to subject at hand, our are you all intent on continuing to play make believe while projecting your denial on me?
 
kylebisme said:
Seriously, can any of you who sparked off at my previous post at least make something resembling a mature response to subject at hand
Click to expand...



I'm not big into physics, but i'll try my hand at logic. Truthers = idiots. You = truther. Therefore, you = idiot.
 
kylebisme said:
I'm 34, and have gained a reasonable grasp of Newtonian physics over my years. However, since you want to dismiss me as a kid, I'd simply point to an engineer who served 30 years at NASA explaining the same thing, and you can find over 1000 other architects engineers listed on that site alone who would be happy to do the same.

Granted, I don't expect everyone to have taken the same interest in physics as people like myself have, but surely you could at least just own up to being in no position to comprehend the matter? Seriously, can any of you who sparked off at my previous post at least make something resembling a mature response to subject at hand, our are you all intent on continuing to play make believe while projecting your denial on me?
Click to expand...

The problem is that what you're presenting in that link, what ALL "9/11 truth" arguments present, is NOT science. It's insinuation without evidence, and it doesn't even tell a complete story. It's shoddy analysis of some minor detail, as if that alone is enough to make an argument one way or the other.

Look at that link you posted. It makes very specific claims about what "obviously" happened, yet provides virtually no science to back it up. There are hardly any numbers at all, and the few they do have aren't even remotely accurate enough to judge anything by. I don't care if you're Newton himself, you can't do science without data.

The problem isn't, and has never been, about the truthers' specific arguments (at least for me it hasn't). It's that your whole approach is broken from the start. You have to come in with an open mind, look at all the data, perform detailed analysis on it using well supported approaches and then form a conclusion. Instead, you jump in with a pre-determined conclusion in mind, wave your hands at some specific piece of the puzzle until you think it looks suspicious enough, and then claim victory.

It's not that you guys don't understand structural engineering, or demolition techniques, or how hot jet fuel burns, or when steel melts, or whatever...it's that you all apparently failed Science 101. How can you possibly get detailed math right when you clearly don't even understand how science works in the first place?

Edit: And since I'm sure it will come up...no, it does not matter if people making the "truth" argument are engineers or not. All that means is that they have a reasonable grasp of their specific field, NOT that they really understand how to behave like a scientist. Or for that matter, that they are capable of doing so when it involves something they hold a very strong opinion about.
 
Last edited:
Skoorb said:
This is true; in the months prior to 9/11 there were many warnings high-up in government about not only an attack but also one using planes. This is a demonstrable fact. It doesn't point to government conspiracy, though, just government incompetence. Or, if you're more fair, simply bad luck; possibly the gov receives so many such warnings it just got lost in the mix. However, it went as high as condi rice, emphatically, so it becomes hard to excuse this as anything other than rank incompetence. I still don't think the US gov was complicit.
Click to expand...

You've answered your own question IMO. Do you have any idea how many "warnings" we get of either terrorist activity in general, or specific types of things which *might* occur. This has been going on really heavily since the 90's especially. It continues today.

We get reports all the time about how there is a 75% change of this kind of attack in the next ___ months, or that a WMD attack is near certain with x amount of time. That's just the stuff we hear about publicly. Many people dismiss the focus on these things as alarmism. But the government obviously has to the vigilant. Yet, it's hard to judge it in hindsight from our limited perspective. Without something *really* specific, it comes across as Monday morning quaterbacking. At least to me.

- wolf
 
Last edited:
The U.S. government did it one way or another; either directly, or indirectly by occupying the middle east for ages. We all know that Bush and Clinton hated America and the Founding Principles in the Declaration of Independence. If the U.S. did do it, then it wasn't the first time. Remember the Maine? Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident?
 
Rainsford said:
The problem is that what you're presenting in that link, what ALL "9/11 truth" arguments present, is NOT science. It's insinuation without evidence, and it doesn't even tell a complete story. It's shoddy analysis of some minor detail, as if that alone is enough to make an argument one way or the other.

Look at that link you posted. It makes very specific claims about what "obviously" happened, yet provides virtually no science to back it up. There are hardly any numbers at all, and the few they do have aren't even remotely accurate enough to judge anything by. I don't care if you're Newton himself, you can't do science without data.

The problem isn't, and has never been, about the truthers' specific arguments (at least for me it hasn't). It's that your whole approach is broken from the start. You have to come in with an open mind, look at all the data, perform detailed analysis on it using well supported approaches and then form a conclusion. Instead, you jump in with a pre-determined conclusion in mind, wave your hands at some specific piece of the puzzle until you think it looks suspicious enough, and then claim victory.

It's not that you guys don't understand structural engineering, or demolition techniques, or how hot jet fuel burns, or when steel melts, or whatever...it's that you all apparently failed Science 101. How can you possibly get detailed math right when you clearly don't even understand how science works in the first place?

Edit: And since I'm sure it will come up...no, it does not matter if people making the "truth" argument are engineers or not. All that means is that they have a reasonable grasp of their specific field, NOT that they really understand how to behave like a scientist. Or for that matter, that they are capable of doing so when it involves something they hold a very strong opinion about.
Click to expand...

The sad thing about this subject is Kylebisme had a whole thread devoted to such and he was caught misrepresenting the math because he did not understand the math to begin with...in fact even those who supported Kylebisme originally would not defend the BS that he was posting towards the end of the thread....

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=329108&highlight=kylebisme

here the thread.......lolol
 
Rainsford said:
The problem is that what you're presenting in that link, what ALL "9/11 truth" arguments present, is NOT science. It's insinuation without evidence, and it doesn't even tell a complete story...
Click to expand...
I thank you or being the the one person to take me up on my request for something resembling a mature response. That said, the evidence is the over 2 seconds of free fall as documented in many videos, of which you can see a compilation of here. Also, I noticed the link in the article is broken, but here is a video analysis of the fall like the one which which eventually persuaded NIST to admit that the roof line did descend at free fall for over 100 feet.

Granted, ignoring that evidence does cause a problem, as does expecting a "complete story" in response to what is simply evidence which disproves the story you'd prefer to believe, and there is nothing scientific in doing either. Science requires coming to terms with the simple fact noted in the article I presented previously:

...during that period of freefall, all of the gravitational energy (also known as potential energy) is converted to energy of motion (also known as kinetic energy). There is no energy available for doing other work, such as breaking up structural columns or hurling structural pieces out of the way.

...Gravitational forces alone can't come close to explaining how the building came down.
Click to expand...
I know the logical implications of this fact aren't easy to come to terms with, as it opens up some troubling questions which surely no one here is currently in any position to answer. Perhaps an aversion to considering opening your mind to such questions is what motivated you to falsely accuse me of having formulated my arguments from a predetermined conclusion, while your arguments suggest that is exactly what you are doing here. Regardless, what I'm referring to is a rather simple matter physics, and ignoring the evidence which proves it while screaming for more numbers and a "complete story" does nothing to change that.

Put simply, there are no numbers or equations to make the story you cling to work, and I can't rightly unlearn the physics which makes that blatantly obvious. So, as I'd really like more a complete story too, I'm left with attempting to convince others to stop opposing the suggestion of organizing a proper criminal investigation to what happened on that day, or better yet actively support as much. Again, I don't expect everyone to have acquired the understanding of Newtonian physics necessary for comprehending the matter, but surely you could at least just admit as much rather than attempting to chastise me for what you are so obviously in no position to comment on?
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
I thank you or being the the one person to take me up on my request for something resembling a mature response. That said, the evidence is the over 2 seconds of free fall as documented in many videos, of which you can see a compilation of here. Also, I noticed the link in the article is broken, but here is a video analysis of the fall like the one which which eventually persuaded NIST to admit that the roof line did descend at free fall for over 100 feet.

Granted, ignoring that evidence does cause a problem, as does expecting a "complete story" in response to what is simply evidence which disproves the story you'd prefer to believe, and there is nothing scientific in doing either. Science requires coming to terms with the simple fact noted in the article I presented previously:


I know the logical implications of this fact aren't easy to come to terms with, as it opens up some troubling questions which surely no one here is currently in any position to answer. Perhaps an aversion to considering opening your mind to such questions is what motivated you to falsely accuse me of having formulated my arguments from a predetermined conclusion, while your arguments suggest that is exactly what you are doing here. Regardless, what I'm referring to is a rather simple matter physics, and ignoring the evidence which proves it while screaming for more numbers and a "complete story" does nothing to change that.

Put simply, there are no numbers or equations to make the story you cling to work, and I can't rightly unlearn the physics which makes that blatantly obvious. So, as I'd really like more a complete story too, I'm left with attempting to convince others to stop opposing the suggestion of organizing a proper criminal investigation to what happened on that day, or better yet actively support as much. Again, I don't expect everyone to have acquired the understanding of Newtonian physics necessary for comprehending the matter, but surely you could at least just admit as much rather than attempting to chastise me for what you are so obviously in no position to comment on?
Click to expand...

Your "simple physics" only appear to work because, as I pointed out, you use extremely vague data to make an extremely specific argument.

Any object is going to fall with an acceleration of 9.8m/s2, minus any resistance from wind or other sources. Calculating how much resistance there is requires you to know EXACTLY how far something fell, and for EXACTLY how long. You can then calculate how far it should have fallen in that time, compare it to how far it did fall, and that gives you a basic idea of how much resistance there was. You can't get ANY of the data necessary to figure that out with any reasonable degree of accuracy from a video...period. Small differences in how long it was falling, and especially how far it fell make a huge difference in the final numbers...yet the latter especially is impossible to determine from that video. Even that link you provided says things like "about 8 floors" and "around 2 seconds". That data isn't even remotely accurate enough to determine ANYTHING from.

Again, this isn't about Newtonian physics, this is about your complete abuse of science. You (and the link you provided) throw around a LOT of terms without giving specific numbers or supporting those terms with evidence. Yet you still base your entire conclusion on those terms being perfectly accurate. Stated another way, your argument is basically that "WTC 7 couldn't have fallen due to official causes, because it fell faster than it would have if the building was breaking the remaining support structures on the way down, which it would have had to do falling the way the official report said it fell."

Now I don't really see scientific support, Newtonian or otherwise, for ANY of the claims required for the overall argument to be true. You don't really know how fast it fell, you don't know how fast it would fall breaking through supports, you don't know how fast it would fall if the supports were demolished by non-official means (they weren't teleported away, so they'd still provide SOME resistance). Instead, you throw out the term "free fall", give a hand-wavy explanation of gravitational potential energy, and call it a day. Put simply, your scientific process sucks.

But the real problem? You go into the discussion with a pre-determined conclusion you want to find...and specifically seek out evidence that you feel supports that conclusion. And that, above and beyond ANY other consideration, is the fundamental problem with your argument. Smart people can be very good at rationalizing anything, so the basic approach MUST start with freedom from seeking any particular outcome...otherwise you're probably going to find it. That's why conspiracy theories work.
 
kylebisme said:
I thank you or being the the one person to take me up on my request for something resembling a mature response. That said, the evidence is the over 2 seconds of free fall as documented in many videos, of which you can see a compilation of here. Also, I noticed the link in the article is broken, but here is a video analysis of the fall like the one which which eventually persuaded NIST to admit that the roof line did descend at free fall for over 100 feet.

Granted, ignoring that evidence does cause a problem, as does expecting a "complete story" in response to what is simply evidence which disproves the story you'd prefer to believe, and there is nothing scientific in doing either. Science requires coming to terms with the simple fact noted in the article I presented previously:


I know the logical implications of this fact aren't easy to come to terms with, as it opens up some troubling questions which surely no one here is currently in any position to answer. Perhaps an aversion to considering opening your mind to such questions is what motivated you to falsely accuse me of having formulated my arguments from a predetermined conclusion, while your arguments suggest that is exactly what you are doing here. Regardless, what I'm referring to is a rather simple matter physics, and ignoring the evidence which proves it while screaming for more numbers and a "complete story" does nothing to change that.

Put simply, there are no numbers or equations to make the story you cling to work, and I can't rightly unlearn the physics which makes that blatantly obvious. So, as I'd really like more a complete story too, I'm left with attempting to convince others to stop opposing the suggestion of organizing a proper criminal investigation to what happened on that day, or better yet actively support as much. Again, I don't expect everyone to have acquired the understanding of Newtonian physics necessary for comprehending the matter, but surely you could at least just admit as much rather than attempting to chastise me for what you are so obviously in no position to comment on?
Click to expand...

Wow I was really worried about you ........ I thought you'd been killed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_pentagon_metro_shooting
 
Anarchist420 said:
The U.S. government did it one way or another; either directly, or indirectly by occupying the middle east for ages. We all know that Bush and Clinton hated America and the Founding Principles in the Declaration of Independence. If the U.S. did do it, then it wasn't the first time. Remember the Maine? Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident?
Click to expand...

Remember butter?
 
MotF Bane said:
The conspiracy nuts are here!
Click to expand...

coincidence nutjobs vs conspiracy nutjobs.

there are no conspiracies or coverups in america. everyone know this.

-explosive bomb residue found on twa flight 800? pure coincidence!
-jfk's head wounds altered, part of his brain stolen, and extra bullet holes in his limo along with a damaged windshield never admitted as evidence? pure coincidence! sorry rfk and jfk jr. ! no life for you!
-martin luther king's family winning a jury trial which unanimously found the us government guilty of conspiracy in his assasination complete with national media blackout? pure coincidence!
- FBI handing real explosive bombs to "terrorists" in the WTC bombing of 93? pure coincidence! thx new york times.
-large explosions injuring multiple WTC workers in the basement of the twin towers minutes before any planes struck the towers on 9/11? pure coincidence!
-According to transportation secratary Norman Mineta testifying under oath, Dick Cheney was monitoring flight 77 as it struck the Pentagon? PURE COINCIDENCE. lulz @ testimony all over youtube but the 9/11 commission "lost" said footage.

like i said. no conspiracies or coverups in america ^^ wuwu

edit: cleary, wtc7 only looked like a classic demolition. i trust the us government though 😉

oh snap, and what about the oklahoma city bombing? ...all surveillance footage of multiple john does still "missing". why is the us government protecting said john does? wut? ^^
 
Last edited:
al981 said:
coincidence nutjobs vs conspiracy nutjobs.

there are no conspiracies or coverups in america. everyone know this.

-explosive bomb residue found on twa flight 800? pure coincidence!
-jfk's head wounds altered, part of his brain stolen, and extra bullet holes in his limo along with a damaged windshield never admitted as evidence? pure coincidence! sorry rfk and jfk jr. ! no life for you!
-martin luther king's family winning a jury trial which unanimously found the us government guilty of conspiracy in his assasination complete with national media blackout? pure coincidence!
- FBI handing real explosive bombs to "terrorists" in the WTC bombing of 93? pure coincidence! thx new york times.
-large explosions injuring multiple WTC workers in the basement of the twin towers minutes before any planes struck the towers on 9/11? pure coincidence!
-According to transportation secratary Norman Mineta testifying under oath, Dick Cheney was monitoring flight 77 as it struck the Pentagon? PURE COINCIDENCE. lulz @ testimony all over youtube but the 9/11 commission "lost" said footage.

like i said. no conspiracies or coverups in america ^^ wuwu
Click to expand...

shit_just_got_real.jpg
 

cool picture, brah.

can you post a picture for this one too:

the entire presidential staff on cirpo weeks before the "surprise" anthrax attacks began.

gogogo son!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top