9-11 conspiracy poll

[Deke4life]

Claiming conspiracy is not a racist stance. I have never heard that about the Jewish community... mainly because its not true. I dont bring up the intangables like racist theories (which I detest), only what we know to be true like the events surounding the colapse of building 7.

Please comment on the links provided in my prevoius post.

Thanks again for the perspective.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Deke4life
Claiming conspiracy is not a racist stance. I have never heard that about the Jewish community... mainly because its not true. I dont bring up the intangables like racist theories (which I detest), only what we know to be true like the events surounding the colapse of building 7.

Please comment on the links provided in my prevoius post.

Thanks again for the perspective.

1 - Judaism is not really a race, that I know of at least.

2 - I'll try to review the materials at my leisure, but you seem to put a lot of stock in certain sites simply b/c "physicists and engineers" have placed an opinion on certain things . . . I'm sure you realize that these titles are useless without credentialing, extensive use of proofs, and etc, and thus anything titled "911physics.com" retains suspicion when the sort of 'establishing as expert' required in, say, court is averted for simply saying "I have a Ph.D. in Physics from CUNY" or etc.

The burden of proof is on the theorists.

3 - There are reasonable conceptualizations for building collapse, outside of conspircy theory, that would be outside of explanation from the 9/11 commission, and you have not served to write these off. Occam's Razor, again, and all that good stuff - this is the reason for the burden in pt 2. Simply saying "this one did this, while these three did not" is completely insufficient.

And thanks for the discussion, it's interesting.

[Deke4life]

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.

If the minimum needed is what we are told by media and politicians, then yes, I am enthusiastically breaking this principle.

However, if this concept is used to look at the most logical reason that is the cause of a certain event, then that is what I am trying to do.

I am not even necessarilly claiming conspiracy, only that building number 7 (the one that has been conveneintly erased from most people's memories) was probably brought down by well placed explosives. And... that the official reason given for its colapse is virtually impossible given the evidence. (not necessarilly conspiracy, although very concerning)

Please refer to my video links in previous posts for info regarding building 7.

I appreciate all of your thoughtful responses.

[Deke4life]

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Deke4life
Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.

If the minimum needed is what we are told by media and politicians, then yes, I am enthusiastically breaking this principle.

However, if this concept is used to look at the most logical reason that is the cause of a certain event, then that is what I am trying to do.

The literal translation is that plurality should not be posited without necessity - I'm directing you to this concept under the scientific 'guise' of "the simplest solution is probably the best", or that it is necessary to use the simplest subset of theory that fits the given data.

Upon cursory review of the information provided, it feels as if many conceptualizations of how the damage was caused can meet the outcome of "Building 7 hits the dirt" . . . and personally, I think that introducing a new explosive element meets the very definition of pluralized assumptions.

Note that I don't necessarily disagree with you - I just don't find the info nearly as cut-and-dried as you have.

The corollary to this is that you've certainly looked much deeper into this than I, so obviously take that for what it's worth.

-RC
--Boring addendum to an interesting thread.

[G8Ralphaxi]

Originally posted by Deke4life
Does anyone believe any of the 9-11 conspiracy theories that our goverment allowed the tragedy to happen or perhaps aided in the event?

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally posted by RACooper
I'd put it up right there with claims that the moon landing was filmed in a studio.... not worth even arguing.

Not wanting to sound like a total fool for gossip... but look into the moonlanding stuff... there is some serious stuff that is accredited that is really fishy about the whole deal. I dont think it was fake, but after really looking into this with skeptisism against it, I cant rule it out.

[Sister Havana]

Originally posted by hoosier
Do you also believe that no Jews died in the World Trade Center, since they were all warned at their synagogues in advance?

That's why I took my trip three weeks BEFORE 9/11. Well, that and the fact that I was in class in Indiana at the time.

Here's the Flight of the Bumble Planes theory. Plenty of fun for the conspiracy fan!

[Deke4life]

[Deke4life]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html

this link is good for general informaion. I still however recomend the video links in my first post.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Deke4life
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html

this link is good for general informaion. I still however recomend the video links in my first post.

You're a fricking nutjob.

-Rudey

[Deke4life]

Thanks for your stunning intellectual analysis of the facts

[Tom Earp]

Originally posted by Deke4life
Thanks for your stunning intellectual analysis of the facts

OKAY!

Your Post are Well Spoken and Appreciated.

Other Post Uncalled For. Oh, another poster.

Just My Oppinion!

[PsychTau]

Originally posted by PM_Mama00
Not too sure because I've seen alot of stuff about the Pentagon and how there was only a small hole in the side when a freaking airliner hit it. I think the government knew.

I was in DC 3 weeks after 9-11....drove down the highway that the plane "followed" (for lack of a better word), stopped and looked at the Pentagon damage....took pictures (if I remember to scan them in I'll post one or two).

There was definitely an airplane sized hole there. I'm no physicist, but based on what I've read about the trajectory of the plane, and by standing there looking at where it came from and how it hit, it didn't have the same velocity as the Twin Towers planes because it didn't have time to get to the same speed as they did and it made a sharp right turn (I believe it was right) in order to hit the building. So it didn't "penetrate" like the Twin Towers planes did. Not only that, but the Pentagon probably was less windows and more concrete at the site of impact (not to mention the "ring" design leads to more concrete) than the Twin Towers did (Towers probably had large floor to ceiling windows). So I'm guessing/observing that the plane exploded as it hit the concrete (which leads to more damage on the outside of the building instead of internally), rather than penetrating further into the building before catching fire like the Towers (leading to more internal structural damage).

If I remember, I'll post a few pics this weekend. They are rather eerie.

PsychTau

[Deke4life]

Interesting. I would love to see those photos.

I really havent had any complaints with the official story (stated by the 9-11 Commission) as it invovles the Pentagon crash, although I understand the concerns of those who question what happenned there. My real point of contention still rests in what happenned to building number seven and how its colapse is related to towers one and two. (see links in previous posts).