9/11 Debate, Do not miss the opportunity! (reject, America, mission, myths)

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by greatcalgarian

I understand your logic of arguement now. Bush refused to debate with Ahmadinejad, because if he accepted the demate, all those great minds who believe GWB is telling the truth know that GWB will be giving Ahmadinejad more press time, and more people might think that Ahmadinjad might be right.
So this is simply western media way of monopolizing the view of American citizen, showing only those things the pepetrator (GWB or US government) want them to view and believe, and is very frightened that by exposing American citizen to other views, American citizens are so dumb naive that they will be easily brainwashed and believe the story of other camp. Now I see your point. American citizen are not sophisticated, they are simple minded, they can easily be manupulated into believing this or believing that. Government duty is like your teacher at school, make sure you are given the right dose of information so that you only have those information to work on, and hence will only believe the government story. That is your logic why no one should participate in the proposed debate, because American citizens cannot tell the right from wrong, unable to make the right decision if given the media coverage etc etc of two views. Safer to give them only one view. Okay, now I fully understand Americans.

No, it is my logic for saying why they would not want to debate in the first place. Wether these experts are right or not is not the point here... It would be silly for them to debate. Any public can be swayed by someone who is lieing if they twist their words the right way...

Again, if you have two plausable explanations for how something happened and one is simple and the other is complex, which are you going to believe? A vast majority of people will believe the simple one because it is what they can understand even though it is more than likely wrong (like in the case of the "explosions" that destroyed the twin towers). Many of the claims the conspiracy theorists are asserting deal with "common sense" rather than real science so when you get a scientist up there describing the equations and what not that show exactly what happened a normal person who understands nothing the scientist says would rather believe the common sense side.

It isn't a "stuipd" American public... It is a stupid public.

[greatcalgarian]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

No, it is my logic for saying why they would not want to debate in the first place. Wether these experts are right or not is not the point here... It would be silly for them to debate. Any public can be swayed by someone who is lieing if they twist their words the right way...

Again, if you have two plausable explanations for how something happened and one is simple and the other is complex, which are you going to believe? A vast majority of people will believe the simple one because it is what they can understand even though it is more than likely wrong (like in the case of the "explosions" that destroyed the twin towers). Many of the claims the conspiracy theorists are asserting deal with "common sense" rather than real science so when you get a scientist up there describing the equations and what not that show exactly what happened a normal person who understands nothing the scientist says would rather believe the common sense side.

It isn't a "stuipd" American public... It is a stupid public.

I still do not see why the expert will not participate, or what harm will it bring in participating, unless those experts do not have anything to refute the other camp.

The government story is appealing to simple common sense, like pan cake, and gasoline melting steel, whereas the so called 'conspiracy theorists' went through details of why government story does not hold water. Explosive is simple to understand? Not so simple if you really try to find fault with the explosive theory.

If you think those conspirator are appealing to simplicity, then we do not need experts to show they are wrong, you should volunteer yourself to be on the government panel to defend the US Government.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by greatcalgarian

I still do not see why the expert will not participate, or what harm will it bring in participating, unless those experts do not have anything to refute the other camp.

It's very likely the same reason I rarely engage in "debates" with people who are out to "prove" that evolution doesn't happen.

My last name is not Quixote.

[greatcalgarian]

Originally Posted by Booko

It's very likely the same reason I rarely engage in "debates" with people who are out to "prove" that evolution doesn't happen.

My last name is not Quixote.

Are you implying that evolution doesn't happen is link to bomb doesn't exist in twin towers and WTC7

[Ryan2065]

I still do not see why the expert will not participate, or what harm will it bring in participating, unless those experts do not have anything to refute the other camp.

If an expert debates someone about this 9/11 stuff then they are putting that person on the same level as the expert in the American eye. It is also more press for the conspiracy theories that are out there... Currently many Americans who hear the whole conspiracy theories are just shrugging most of them off as thoughts of crazy people who are anti government... If an expert debates another on these points then to the american public this person no longer is a crazy person but a person with a valid enough concern to get an expert involved in a national debate.

Its simple politics.

The government story is appealing to simple common sense, like pan cake, and gasoline melting steel, whereas the so called 'conspiracy theorists' went through details of why government story does not hold water. Explosive is simple to understand? Not so simple if you really try to find fault with the explosive theory.

Actually in a nutshell the planes flew into the building, hit the steel that had coatings that made them flame resistant, the coatings after being hit by a huge plane were comprimised and as a result they were more likely to melt.

Actually with the evidence a physics person could easily disprove the "explosion" theory but a normal person would not quite get the math I suppose... Looking at a ton of equations on a board to prove one side and looking at videos showing the twin towers falling compared to a controlled demolition a lay person is more than likely going to go for the visual aid when in reality you need to know about the conditions inside and all the math...

If you think those conspirator are appealing to simplicity, then we do not need experts to show they are wrong, you should volunteer yourself to be on the government panel to defend the US Government.

The conspirators are appealing to simplicity while the truth lies in complex math... One side is complicated while the other is not =)

[kai]

if you wanted to debate that the moon is made of green cheese and no one turned up does that mean you have won the debate and the moon is made of green cheese or does it mean that no one can be bothered to argue such a foolish statement

[greatcalgarian]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

Actually in a nutshell the planes flew into the building, hit the steel that had coatings that made them flame resistant, the coatings after being hit by a huge plane were comprimised and as a result they were more likely to melt.
The conspirators are appealing to simplicity while the truth lies in complex math... One side is complicated while the other is not =)

You tell me this conspiracy theory is simple and easy to understand?
In my diseased mind, I think of the floors of each tower like a stack of LP (33-1/3 RPM) records, except that the floors were square instead of circular. They were stacked around a central spindle that consisted of multiple steel columns interspersed with dozens of elevator shafts (see http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm , http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm , and http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html ).

Images cached from BBC page ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ) and HERA report by G. Charles Clifton ( http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/clifton.pdf ). Items indicated in Clifton image (right): 13. Exterior columns; 17. Interior columns; 20. Usable office space

BBC News Image (left) is misleading:

1. A "beam" is always horizontal, "columns" are vertical. The vertical steel supports in the core were columns.
2. The central columns occupied about 25% of the floor area, not 10% as is shown on the left.
3. The central columns were not encased in a single block of concrete, but interspersed with elevator shafts

Typical floor plan of WTC tower (from
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm )

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html

I do not agree with your assumption that conspiracy theory appeal to simplicity and government explanations is very scientific and difficult for layman to understand. In actual fact, I find NIST report relatively easy to read without needing much research, whereas those conspiracy theories have lots of equations that I need to verify carefully to make sure they are not bs

[Booko]

Originally Posted by greatcalgarian

Are you implying that evolution doesn't happen is link to bomb doesn't exist in twin towers and WTC7

The approach of one's opponents is remarkably similar, in that said opponent is usually quite impervious to facts.

Oh, it's not that they simply challenge the factual nature of evidence presented -- in a debate that's to be expected. It's that said opponents blissfully sidestep any evidence that is brought forward as if it did not exist and does not need to be dealt with.

You know, like the lack of concentration camps and Latvians where members of RF have personally gone and looked.

[greatcalgarian]

Originally Posted by kai

if you wanted to debate that the moon is made of green cheese and no one turned up does that mean you have won the debate and the moon is made of green cheese or does it mean that no one can be bothered to argue such a foolish statement

Hmmm, now I know one out of three American thinks that the moon is made of green cheese.

August 3, 2006 -- More than one-third of Americans suspect federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new poll.

The survey also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.
The national Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.
Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Suspicions that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job quickly have become nearly as popular as decades-old conspiracy theories that the federal government was responsible for President John Kennedy's assassination and that it has covered up proof of space aliens.
Seventy percent of people who give credence to these theories also say they've become angrier with the federal government than they used to be.
Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."
"One out of three sounds high, but that may very well be right," said Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also called the 9/11 commission).
His congressionally appointed investigation concluded that federal officials bungled their attempts to prevent, but did not participate in, the attacks by al Qaeda five years ago.
"A lot of people I've encountered believe the U.S. government was involved," Hamilton said. "Many say the government planned the whole thing. Of course, we don't think the evidence leads that way at all."

University of Florida Law Professor Mark Fenster, author of the book "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture," said the poll's findings reflect public anger at the unpopular Iraq war, realization that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and growing doubts of the veracity of the Bush administration.
"What has amazed me is not that there are conspiracy theories, but that they didn't seem to be getting any purchase among the American public until the last year or so," Fenster said.

The survey found that people who regularly use the Internet and not mainstream media are significantly more likely to believe in 9/11 conspiracies.
The survey was conducted by telephone from July 6 through 24 at the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation. The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points. Scripps Howard

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationaln...tempel_iii.htm