9/11 conspiracy theorists multiply

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Are you still talking? I ignored you the first time since it's common knowledge that mass does not factor into this equation once the towers have started falling.

In 1586, Simon Stevin reported that different weights fell a given distance in the same time. His experiments were conducted using two lead balls, one being ten times the weight of the other, which he dropped thirty feet from the church tower in Delft.

Never done a Falling Bodies Experiment, have we? Now kindly stfu.

mass is used to determine with how much energy the falling objects impact whatever they land on

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

This is the most powerful nation in the world with agencies devoted for knowing about when things like this go down, and if the Mossad knew (Israel's spy agency) then you can bet your life savings the USA did too. Afterall, Israel is our ally (even though their intelligence agents were on the roof of a building, filming and celebrating as the towers fell. :| )

Do you have the video?

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisageAfterall, Israel is our ally (even though their intelligence agents were on the roof of a building, filming and celebrating as the towers fell.

Never heard that one before. Pics/link/vid?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
SpeeDemon, I agree with SampSon.

Furthermore, you seem to have a huge logical flaw in your reasoning.

You reason that it would take MUCH longer for the building to fall, unless there were explosive charges. I believe it was you who said something like

Physics says the building should have taken 0.5-1s per floor to fall. 94/2 = 47 seconds, not 8.4.

But then,

I never said that I believed explosives were set on every floor, of course that is preposterous.

So, IF your physics IS correct, then EVERY floor that didn't have explosives on it would have increased the total time of collapse by .5 to 1 seconds. Your two statements are unreconcilable. I can't believe no one has pointed that out to you yet.

Seriously... think about this for a for a few minutes. And, you claim that the total time was close to the total time for a falling rock. (it wasn't) Well, guess what... if the building collapsed that fast, then EVERY floor without explosives must have collapsed that fast, i.e. the existence or absence of explosives has no effect on collapse time.


Quite honestly, I can see how some people could be convinced that explosives were necessary. (Not that I believe that). However, it boils down to an issue of what started the chain reaction - the floors collapsing independently due to weakened steel, damage, or the floors collapsing due to explosives. Regardless of the cause, those first few floors collapsed and started a whole chain reaction. Unless there were explosives on every floor, a charge that you consider preposterous, then using the total time for the collapse of the trade center to prove the existence of explosives is ridiculous.. Furthermore, and this statement isn't coming out of no where; it's been established in the past on these forums: *I* teach physics (and math). I could teach at the local community college if there was an opening. If your father was teaching these conspiracy theories as fact in his physics classes at the local community college, I guarantee there would be an opening. If ANY of my colleagues were showing films such as the one you claim your father showed to students and those colleagues claimed that it was proof of a conspiracy to their students, then I'd be working hard to inform the community, board of education, and everyone else concerned about the education of the children. I find it to be a greater disservice than teaching intelligent design.

A good demo job does not have to blow out the supports of each floor, and can come close to the time of a free falling object, I made this clear, read the whole thread. Of course there weren't explosives on each floor, don't be silly. And of course the building isn't going to fall as fast freefalling debris (even the video shows debris falling slightly below the building Amused, so your website isn't telling us anything we haven't seen before).

The facts stand: The plane hit the North Tower almost square on (and not a corner like the South Tower). And this caused the top 14.5% to bring down the other 85.5% without explosives in roughly 10 seconds (remember it takes an object 8.4s to freefall from 94th floor)? In a building that was designed to withstand extreme weather conditions? No, not without explosives.

The South Tower is a different argument altogether because it was hit much lower and on a corner. The whole debate was never about the South Tower (Amused your "loose change" website only addressed the South Tower footage).

DrPizza, your opinion about using that video during an experiment in a Physics class means nothing. Your opinion is your opinion and I know it's hard for you to deal with since you have your presumptuous head stuck up your ass... My dad isn't teaching any "conspiracy theory" nor is he "leftist" (as some presumptuous a.holes have assumed already), he's been teaching Physics for over 30 years, and sure as hell I'm going to believe him over some guys on the internet.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Are you still talking? I ignored you the first time since it's common knowledge that mass does not factor into this equation once the towers have started falling.

In 1586, Simon Stevin reported that different weights fell a given distance in the same time. His experiments were conducted using two lead balls, one being ten times the weight of the other, which he dropped thirty feet from the church tower in Delft.

Never done a Falling Bodies Experiment, have we? Now kindly stfu.

mass is used to determine with how much energy the falling objects impact whatever they land on

The only part where mass would have played a role would be in the weakening of the frame of the building in accordance to where the frame was hit. Once an object is already falling due to gravity, mass has nothing to do with the equation of the falling object (i.e. top of the building)'s acceleration, 30 floors will drop at the same rate as 16. Which was what douche1 (not worthy of naming) was referring to, an object (towers) dropping relative to the time of a freefalling object. Furthermore, IF mass would have really played a huge role, then why did the South Tower (30 floors of mass) crumble in roughly the same time as the North (16 Floors of mass)?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
The only part where mass would have played a role would be in the weakening of the frame of the building in accordance to where the frame was hit. Once an object is already falling due to gravity, mass has nothing to do with the equation of the falling object (i.e. top of the building)'s acceleration, 30 floors will drop at the same rate as 16. Which was what douche1 (not worthy of naming) was referring to, an object (towers) dropping relative to the time of a freefalling object. Furthermore, IF mass would have really played a huge role, then why did the South Tower (30 floors of mass) crumble in roughly the same time as the North (16 Floors of mass)?

a) 30 floors falling from a lower point than 16 floors are going to hit the bottom earlier than the 16 floors, simply because the 16 floors have an additional 14 floors to fall.

b) you're still completely ignoring the video evidence that freefalling objects hit the ground well before collapsing tower did.

c) did the buildings collapse in roughly the same time? and if so, does a loaded train running into a car take appreciably more time to crush the car than an unloaded train? after a certain point where the difference in energy is large enough already, only very fine instruments might find a difference. and please remember that the south tower leaned as it fell, so had a bit less resistance on its way down

i don't even buy into your 10 second thing, considering the video you're relying on was already shown to have started its counter 5 seconds late.

and where you're pulling the .5 seconds per floor from i have no idea. please explain how you arrive at half a second minimum per floor.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

The right to freedom of speech also grants me the right to say STFU. Oh, and stop using your veteran status to put yourself on the moral high ground.

As I said, I don't support the conspiracy theories, but I think it's absolutely critical that people are free to discuss these issues without mockery. The only reason people are so afraid of these discussions, IMO, is that they the very idea they might be true makes people very very uncomfortable. This is the same reason people are so censorious of the idea of a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, in spite of the fact there is such persuasive evidence to support it. The voices shouting "STFU" are, IMO, cowardly and sad, and you fit squarely into that category, along with many others in this thread.

It's disappointing so many Americans are afraid to think for themselves, and are so insecure about even entertaining dissenting ideas. We have fallen very far in that respect, since the days of the founding fathers.

Are you kidding me, Don_Vito? Why should people have freedom from mockery? Conspiracy theories about 9/11 are out on the lunatic fringe, and should be treated as such.

I don't think it is cowardly to not waste time on arguments we've already read countless times and researched. Does the Supreme Court issue rulings on every single case brought before them? They've seen the same song-and-dance routine on certain issues so many times, that they aren't going to encumber themselves with ridiculous briefs and arguments. I'm sure as you are well aware, that with the clerking system, it is likely they rarely encounter any of the junk anymore.

Should they have to entertain those arguments and motions? Nope. Just like I don't have to entertain the ignorance of someone who tells me gravity doesn't exist, snakes don't bite, or planes fly because of butterfly farts. Entertaining such absurdity is a waste of time, and it tends to give credibility where none is deserved.

I don't know about you, but I've spent quite a bit of time crawling around conspiracy websites and watching the documentaries that they beg you to watch. The end result, is that I think conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are absurd and a waste of time.

The only reason people are so afraid of these discussions, IMO, is that they the very idea they might be true makes people very very uncomfortable.

You are a much better debater than to use such a lame fallacy. I don't know if you are overworked or just feeling lazy, but that's some specious logic you just used. There are tons of reason why people choose to lambaste 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Some do it because it gets the forums in such a froth and some do it because they are close minded. The vast majority, however, are people who have critical thinking skills and know how to use logic, and they've determined that discussion about such utter rubbish (9/11 conspiracy theories) is only worthy of ridicule.

I find your argument regarding the chilling of speech to be rather weak, and a bit shocked at your interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is clear that it is meant to prevent the government from interfering with free speech, but private citizens can tell people to shut-up all they want. I really don't think that being told to shut-up on the Internet is to the level of "chilling speech" that the USSC has been using as of late.

If this were an academic classroom, I could agree with you that more respect should be given.

 

[tylerdustin2008]

WATCH THIS, IT WILL MAKE YOU THINK LONG AND HARD. AND IT IS ABOUT 9/11. And i thought it was al-quedada** but once i watched this i changed my mind.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid...18920724339766288&q=loose+change&hl=en

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: tylerdustin2008
WATCH THIS, IT WILL MAKE YOU THINK LONG AND HARD. AND IT IS ABOUT 9/11. And i thought it was al-quedada** but once i watched this i changed my mind.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid...18920724339766288&q=loose+change&hl=en

DID YOU READ ANY OF THE TREAD?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Are you still talking? I ignored you the first time since it's common knowledge that mass does not factor into this equation once the towers have started falling.

In 1586, Simon Stevin reported that different weights fell a given distance in the same time. His experiments were conducted using two lead balls, one being ten times the weight of the other, which he dropped thirty feet from the church tower in Delft.

Never done a Falling Bodies Experiment, have we? Now kindly stfu.

You're really making yourself look bad here.

Mass definitely DOES figure into this scenario, since we are talking about a mass's ability to break the floor below it.

If you had 1 floor crashing down on the floor below it, it might not be able to overcome the strength of the lower floor. If you had 3 floors crashing down, they might break the lower floor, but their motion will have been significantly slowed down. If you have 50 floors crashing down on the floor below, they'd easily overcome the strength of that floor, and their momentum would hardly be slowed at all.

In the situation with the towers, a large chunk of the towers began to fall onto the floors below. It didn't start with the top floor and cascade down, it was a pretty large section of tower which crashed down.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I don't believe any conspiracies but I DO KNOW that explosives were used to bring down the WTC Towers. My dad is a physics teacher and shows this to his class as well:
Text

How the explosives got there, I don't know nor care but if you think that "frame was melted by fire" or "collapsed on its own" then you're a moron. The laws of Physics clearly show that it was impossible for the WTC to collapse that fast without explosives.

i'd like to know how the third tower fell the same way...

also in regards to the cameras...most are not looking for hotel and gas station camera...they are looking for the ones all over pentagon property.

Also people are always assuming when one talks of a conspiracy, they mean from within. It's very easy another group actually pulled this off. However; by linking it all to the Al Queda makes people more comfortable.

I am not sure what to believe...the way the buildings fell did not make sense to me though either.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I don't believe any conspiracies but I DO KNOW that explosives were used to bring down the WTC Towers. My dad is a physics teacher and shows this to his class as well:
Text

How the explosives got there, I don't know nor care but if you think that "frame was melted by fire" or "collapsed on its own" then you're a moron. The laws of Physics clearly show that it was impossible for the WTC to collapse that fast without explosives.

i'd like to know how the third tower fell the same way...

also in regards to the cameras...most are not looking for hotel and gas station camera...they are looking for the ones all over pentagon property.

Also people are always assuming when one talks of a conspiracy, they mean from within. It's very easy another group actually pulled this off. However; by linking it all to the Al Queda makes people more comfortable.

I am not sure what to believe...the way the buildings fell did not make sense to me though either.

The third tower was allowed to burn uncontrolled for 8 hours, and finally the structure failed.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

The right to freedom of speech also grants me the right to say STFU. Oh, and stop using your veteran status to put yourself on the moral high ground.

As I said, I don't support the conspiracy theories, but I think it's absolutely critical that people are free to discuss these issues without mockery. The only reason people are so afraid of these discussions, IMO, is that they the very idea they might be true makes people very very uncomfortable. This is the same reason people are so censorious of the idea of a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, in spite of the fact there is such persuasive evidence to support it. The voices shouting "STFU" are, IMO, cowardly and sad, and you fit squarely into that category, along with many others in this thread.

It's disappointing so many Americans are afraid to think for themselves, and are so insecure about even entertaining dissenting ideas. We have fallen very far in that respect, since the days of the founding fathers.

Are you kidding me, Don_Vito? Why should people have freedom from mockery? Conspiracy theories about 9/11 are out on the lunatic fringe, and should be treated as such.

I don't think it is cowardly to not waste time on arguments we've already read countless times and researched. Does the Supreme Court issue rulings on every single case brought before them? They've seen the same song-and-dance routine on certain issues so many times, that they aren't going to encumber themselves with ridiculous briefs and arguments. I'm sure as you are well aware, that with the clerking system, it is likely they rarely encounter any of the junk anymore.

Should they have to entertain those arguments and motions? Nope. Just like I don't have to entertain the ignorance of someone who tells me gravity doesn't exist, snakes don't bite, or planes fly because of butterfly farts. Entertaining such absurdity is a waste of time, and it tends to give credibility where none is deserved.

I don't know about you, but I've spent quite a bit of time crawling around conspiracy websites and watching the documentaries that they beg you to watch. The end result, is that I think conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are absurd and a waste of time.

The only reason people are so afraid of these discussions, IMO, is that they the very idea they might be true makes people very very uncomfortable.

You are a much better debater than to use such a lame fallacy. I don't know if you are overworked or just feeling lazy, but that's some specious logic you just used. There are tons of reason why people choose to lambaste 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Some do it because it gets the forums in such a froth and some do it because they are close minded. The vast majority, however, are people who have critical thinking skills and know how to use logic, and they've determined that discussion about such utter rubbish (9/11 conspiracy theories) is only worthy of ridicule.

I find your argument regarding the chilling of speech to be rather weak, and a bit shocked at your interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is clear that it is meant to prevent the government from interfering with free speech, but private citizens can tell people to shut-up all they want. I really don't think that being told to shut-up on the Internet is to the level of "chilling speech" that the USSC has been using as of late.

If this were an academic classroom, I could agree with you that more respect should be given.

Mill, I'm only responding to this because I like you - I think your post is every bit as silly as the ones above, and in many respects sillier (particularly your strange flight of fancy into the certiorari process).

I defy you to find one post, anywhere, where I've said people should be estopped by law from saying "STFU," or its equivalent. I can only repeat myself so many times: saying "STFU" is the same as other kinds of speech, in that it is specifically intended to prevent further discussion. Obviously people are free to tell other to shut up, but I think it is a pointless deterrent to free speech.

I don't understand the relevance of your Supreme Court comments - they seem like a bizarre rhetorical non sequitur.

As I said, I am certainly not advancing the idea of legislation that would prevent anyone from saying "STFU." I will point out, though, that others in this thread have advanced the idea of barring conspiracy theorists from voting, which clearly would be a legislated restriction on free speech.

I will also point out that a large percentage of our country's population believes ideas every bit as stupid as the ones you allude to, including but not limited to the notion that God made the world in six days.

I will say one last time that I don't believe in the conspiracy theories. I just think this board is populated by a staggeringly conformist group of people (probably because they are mostly teenage males). People here are, to a disappointing extent, not only afraid to think for themselves, but intolerant of the idea that others might do so.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I don't believe any conspiracies but I DO KNOW that explosives were used to bring down the WTC Towers. My dad is a physics teacher and shows this to his class as well:
Text

How the explosives got there, I don't know nor care but if you think that "frame was melted by fire" or "collapsed on its own" then you're a moron. The laws of Physics clearly show that it was impossible for the WTC to collapse that fast without explosives.

i'd like to know how the third tower fell the same way...

also in regards to the cameras...most are not looking for hotel and gas station camera...they are looking for the ones all over pentagon property.

Also people are always assuming when one talks of a conspiracy, they mean from within. It's very easy another group actually pulled this off. However; by linking it all to the Al Queda makes people more comfortable.

I am not sure what to believe...the way the buildings fell did not make sense to me though either.

Are you a structural engineer? The engineers who built the towers agree with the official explanation but you don?t. You?ve probably watched loose change to many times. Or maybe it is a lack of intellectual capacity that prevent you and your bodies from differentiating between reasonable and unreasonable explanations?

 

[MikeMike]

as i did in the previous thread, i give up, theres no hope in convincing any of the tinfoilbeanie lined morons in this thread (SP33Demon, BrokenVisage) that their views are wrong.

Loose Change took specific camera views, and used it to their ability to manipulate the falling of the building.

not only did the debris that was ejected from teh side of the building hit the ground faster, it also was below the top of the building, and accelerating faster than the rest of the building

mass sure as fvck comes into an equation when talking about force, a bowling ball will have much more force than a feather after falling 200' no? then you have to talk aobut the breaking strength of the welds, and the rivets, and the bolts that held the floors together.

not only this, but SP33 is so ingrained in his moronic head, that i would like to sit through the video his dad shows his class, watch him try to explain it, and then ask him why the debris was falling faster than the actual building, and if he would show us the other angle, in which the building LEANS first and slowly falls, and then start the count down from the moment it leans.

in conclusion, unless i get called out, i am done with this thread, and will continue to call SP33 a tinfoilbeanie wearer, and nominate the avalanche thread for pwnage of the year on his ass (cuz damn he got owned).
BrokenVisage, i give up with you, hopefully you never have kids.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DonVito
People here are, to a disappointing extent, not only afraid to think for themselves, but intolerant of the idea that others might do so.

considering how the conspiracy theorists hold on to their ideas in the face of overwhelming evidence, i think you've got it backward. it's the conspiracy theorists who cannot think, and THAT is exactly the reason they are being ridiculed.

IF they brought out a good theory that works with all the facts THEN a proper discussion would be had, and i would agree that telling someone to just STFU would be bad. but that is NOT the case.

we're talking about people who say there is no proof that an airliner crashed into the pentagon, when there were plenty of eyewitness accounts of the airliner flying into the pentagon, and then lots of eyewitness accounts and clear pictures of the wreckage strewn about everywhere. to hold up the theory that a missle or something else hit the pentagon that day has no basis in reality. it isn't critical thinking. it is sheer fantasy.

 

[alkemyst]

Truth is IMHO is there is not enough evidence to support either conspiracy or not.

 

[tylerdustin2008]

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: tylerdustin2008
WATCH THIS, IT WILL MAKE YOU THINK LONG AND HARD. AND IT IS ABOUT 9/11. And i thought it was al-quedada** but once i watched this i changed my mind.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid...18920724339766288&q=loose+change&hl=en

DID YOU READ ANY OF THE TREAD?

I readf some of the thread, i helped the people who dont want to readit all.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: tylerdustin2008

Originally posted by: Number1

Originally posted by: tylerdustin2008
WATCH THIS, IT WILL MAKE YOU THINK LONG AND HARD. AND IT IS ABOUT 9/11. And i thought it was al-quedada** but once i watched this i changed my mind.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid...18920724339766288&q=loose+change&hl=en

DID YOU READ ANY OF THE TREAD?

I readf some of the thread, i helped the people who dont want to readit all.

You obviously did not read enough of the thread if you think that video will make any logical, critical thinker think long, much less hard.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

This guide will, for the thinking impaired, completely tear apart the absurdities, factual lies, lies of omission and outright fairy tales of the video you posted... since you obviously could not see through the BS on your own.

 

[IGBT]

..a lot of these guys listen to Art Bell and call up on his show on the weekends trying to air their hullucinative psychosis. Art laughs at em..they get frustrated and hang up.

 

[dwell]

A video tape was just released of Bin Laden praising the 19 hijackers by name. Those CIA computers do create synthesis I guess.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: DrPizza
SpeeDemon, I agree with SampSon.

Furthermore, you seem to have a huge logical flaw in your reasoning.

You reason that it would take MUCH longer for the building to fall, unless there were explosive charges. I believe it was you who said something like

Physics says the building should have taken 0.5-1s per floor to fall. 94/2 = 47 seconds, not 8.4.

But then,

I never said that I believed explosives were set on every floor, of course that is preposterous.

So, IF your physics IS correct, then EVERY floor that didn't have explosives on it would have increased the total time of collapse by .5 to 1 seconds. Your two statements are unreconcilable. I can't believe no one has pointed that out to you yet.

Seriously... think about this for a for a few minutes. And, you claim that the total time was close to the total time for a falling rock. (it wasn't) Well, guess what... if the building collapsed that fast, then EVERY floor without explosives must have collapsed that fast, i.e. the existence or absence of explosives has no effect on collapse time.


Quite honestly, I can see how some people could be convinced that explosives were necessary. (Not that I believe that). However, it boils down to an issue of what started the chain reaction - the floors collapsing independently due to weakened steel, damage, or the floors collapsing due to explosives. Regardless of the cause, those first few floors collapsed and started a whole chain reaction. Unless there were explosives on every floor, a charge that you consider preposterous, then using the total time for the collapse of the trade center to prove the existence of explosives is ridiculous.. Furthermore, and this statement isn't coming out of no where; it's been established in the past on these forums: *I* teach physics (and math). I could teach at the local community college if there was an opening. If your father was teaching these conspiracy theories as fact in his physics classes at the local community college, I guarantee there would be an opening. If ANY of my colleagues were showing films such as the one you claim your father showed to students and those colleagues claimed that it was proof of a conspiracy to their students, then I'd be working hard to inform the community, board of education, and everyone else concerned about the education of the children. I find it to be a greater disservice than teaching intelligent design.

A good demo job does not have to blow out the supports of each floor, and can come close to the time of a free falling object, I made this clear, read the whole thread. Of course there weren't explosives on each floor, don't be silly. And of course the building isn't going to fall as fast freefalling debris (even the video shows debris falling slightly below the building Amused, so your website isn't telling us anything we haven't seen before).

The facts stand: The plane hit the North Tower almost square on (and not a corner like the South Tower). And this caused the top 14.5% to bring down the other 85.5% without explosives in roughly 10 seconds (remember it takes an object 8.4s to freefall from 94th floor)? In a building that was designed to withstand extreme weather conditions? No, not without explosives.

The South Tower is a different argument altogether because it was hit much lower and on a corner. The whole debate was never about the South Tower (Amused your "loose change" website only addressed the South Tower footage).

DrPizza, your opinion about using that video during an experiment in a Physics class means nothing. Your opinion is your opinion and I know it's hard for you to deal with since you have your presumptuous head stuck up your ass... My dad isn't teaching any "conspiracy theory" nor is he "leftist" (as some presumptuous a.holes have assumed already), he's been teaching Physics for over 30 years, and sure as hell I'm going to believe him over some guys on the internet.

Note: I said think about it for a few minutes. If the bottom 30 floors did not have explosives - and no one thinks they did, even the conspiracy nuts - then they collapsed at nearly the same speed as the falling debris. Thus, explosives aren't necessary once a chain reaction has started. So, if those 30 floors can collapse that quickly, what makes it necessary for the other floors to have explosives to make them collapse so quickly.

presumptuous a.holes
presumptuous head stuck up your ass

What ever happened to the new climate around here?

 

[DrPizza]

How the explosives got there, I don't know nor care but if you think that "frame was melted by fire" or "collapsed on its own" then you're a moron. The laws of Physics clearly show that it was impossible for the WTC to collapse that fast without explosives.

It's funny that we haven't heard from the majority of physicists about this. It's funny that no physicist has desired some degree of fame and published your findings in a journal. Sure, the conspirators in the government can squash any attempts in THIS country, but there are physicists all over the world. None, (except the father of one of the posters here) has made a reasonable clain that the laws of physics were broken. Why? Because the laws of physics WEREN'T broken.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

The right to freedom of speech also grants me the right to say STFU. Oh, and stop using your veteran status to put yourself on the moral high ground.

As I said, I don't support the conspiracy theories, but I think it's absolutely critical that people are free to discuss these issues without mockery. The only reason people are so afraid of these discussions, IMO, is that they the very idea they might be true makes people very very uncomfortable. This is the same reason people are so censorious of the idea of a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, in spite of the fact there is such persuasive evidence to support it. The voices shouting "STFU" are, IMO, cowardly and sad, and you fit squarely into that category, along with many others in this thread.

It's disappointing so many Americans are afraid to think for themselves, and are so insecure about even entertaining dissenting ideas. We have fallen very far in that respect, since the days of the founding fathers.

Are you kidding me, Don_Vito? Why should people have freedom from mockery? Conspiracy theories about 9/11 are out on the lunatic fringe, and should be treated as such.

I don't think it is cowardly to not waste time on arguments we've already read countless times and researched. Does the Supreme Court issue rulings on every single case brought before them? They've seen the same song-and-dance routine on certain issues so many times, that they aren't going to encumber themselves with ridiculous briefs and arguments. I'm sure as you are well aware, that with the clerking system, it is likely they rarely encounter any of the junk anymore.

Should they have to entertain those arguments and motions? Nope. Just like I don't have to entertain the ignorance of someone who tells me gravity doesn't exist, snakes don't bite, or planes fly because of butterfly farts. Entertaining such absurdity is a waste of time, and it tends to give credibility where none is deserved.

I don't know about you, but I've spent quite a bit of time crawling around conspiracy websites and watching the documentaries that they beg you to watch. The end result, is that I think conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are absurd and a waste of time.

The only reason people are so afraid of these discussions, IMO, is that they the very idea they might be true makes people very very uncomfortable.

You are a much better debater than to use such a lame fallacy. I don't know if you are overworked or just feeling lazy, but that's some specious logic you just used. There are tons of reason why people choose to lambaste 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Some do it because it gets the forums in such a froth and some do it because they are close minded. The vast majority, however, are people who have critical thinking skills and know how to use logic, and they've determined that discussion about such utter rubbish (9/11 conspiracy theories) is only worthy of ridicule.

I find your argument regarding the chilling of speech to be rather weak, and a bit shocked at your interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is clear that it is meant to prevent the government from interfering with free speech, but private citizens can tell people to shut-up all they want. I really don't think that being told to shut-up on the Internet is to the level of "chilling speech" that the USSC has been using as of late.

If this were an academic classroom, I could agree with you that more respect should be given.

Mill, I'm only responding to this because I like you - I think your post is every bit as silly as the ones above, and in many respects sillier (particularly your strange flight of fancy into the certiorari process).

I defy you to find one post, anywhere, where I've said people should be estopped by law from saying "STFU," or its equivalent. I can only repeat myself so many times: saying "STFU" is the same as other kinds of speech, in that it is specifically intended to prevent further discussion. Obviously people are free to tell other to shut up, but I think it is a pointless deterrent to free speech.

I don't understand the relevance of your Supreme Court comments - they seem like a bizarre rhetorical non sequitur.

As I said, I am certainly not advancing the idea of legislation that would prevent anyone from saying "STFU." I will point out, though, that others in this thread have advanced the idea of barring conspiracy theorists from voting, which clearly would be a legislated restriction on free speech.

I will also point out that a large percentage of our country's population believes ideas every bit as stupid as the ones you allude to, including but not limited to the notion that God made the world in six days.

I will say one last time that I don't believe in the conspiracy theories. I just think this board is populated by a staggeringly conformist group of people (probably because they are mostly teenage males). People here are, to a disappointing extent, not only afraid to think for themselves, but intolerant of the idea that others might do so.

I mentioned the certiorari process, because the thread was discussing giving equal time (ridicule free time at that) to the conspiracy theorists. I was pointing out that it isn't silly to not respect old, tired, and absurd arguments, because even our most revered institute of justice refuses to do so. If something inane even gets filed, it doesn't even make it through the clerk system. My point, I don't feel, was really that ambiguous or silly.

I don't think telling people to STFU is a deterrent to free speech -- no more that replying with links to sites that debunk Loose Change or other tools of the conspiracy trade. I don't see how my comments regarding the chilling of speech seem like a non sequitur. I was referring to the last few USSC decisions regarding the 1st Amendment and their protection of speech. Their definition of the "chilling of speech" is quite different than yours, and that's the point I was making. I know we are not speaking legally here, but your arguments were getting dangerously close to fully playing the Constitution card without respect to prior precedent.

I will also point out that a large percentage of our country's population believes ideas every bit as stupid as the ones you allude to, including but not limited to the notion that God made the world in six days.

I will say one last time that I don't believe in the conspiracy theories. I just think this board is populated by a staggeringly conformist group of people (probably because they are mostly teenage males). People here are, to a disappointing extent, not only afraid to think for themselves, but intolerant of the idea that others might do so.

To a small extent I would be willing to agree. There are those that believe in a fantasy of creationism and then they attack the 9/11 conspiracy theorists as being loony. However, I think that is a bit of a red herring and quite a simplification. Creationism and how life began is not just a scientific process, but a philosophical one as well. Even with all the scientific proof out there, there's still no way to establish a logical progression of the origin of the Universe. My personal beliefs discount creationism and intelligent design, though. I think, however, that you reached a pretty good point without realizing it. People want things to be cut-and-dry and have a clear idea of what happened in an event. 9/11 is an event muddled by many different theories, so it stands to reason you are going to have separate camps.

The big question: Do you rationally discuss creationism and ID with Christians and family? Without any ridicule? When they quote the bible do you say STFU? Perhaps you don't and you give equal time -- that would make you a bigger man than I.

I can't fathom why you keep saying this has to do with conformity. Has it still not crossed your mind that some of us have gone through a logical progression and decided that 9/11 conspiracies are bonkers? In fact, I'd say that's what many of the people here have done. el fenix, 91TTZ, MikeMike, and others have discussed things numerous times in 9/11 threads -- mostly in a serious way. Now, they've reached the point of realizing their goals are absurd. You will never be able to debate a conspiracy theorist in a logical or rational way -- no more than you can debate most Christians about Creationism and their faith.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Mill

To a small extent I would be willing to agree. There are those that believe in a fantasy of creationism and then they attack the 9/11 conspiracy theorists as being loony. However, I think that is a bit of a red herring and quite a simplification. Creationism and how life began is not just a scientific process, but a philosophical one as well. Even with all the scientific proof out there, there's still no way to establish a logical progression of the origin of the Universe. My personal beliefs discount creationism and intelligent design, though. I think, however, that you reached a pretty good point without realizing it. People want things to be cut-and-dry and have a clear idea of what happened in an event. 9/11 is an event muddled by many different theories, so it stands to reason you are going to have separate camps.

The big question: Do you rationally discuss creationism and ID with Christians and family? Without any ridicule? When they quote the bible do you say STFU? Perhaps you don't and you give equal time -- that would make you a bigger man than I.

I can't fathom why you keep saying this has to do with conformity. Has it still not crossed your mind that some of us have gone through a logical progression and decided that 9/11 conspiracies are bonkers? In fact, I'd say that's what many of the people here have done. el fenix, 91TTZ, MikeMike, and others have discussed things numerous times in 9/11 threads -- mostly in a serious way. Now, they've reached the point of realizing their goals are absurd. You will never be able to debate a conspiracy theorist in a logical or rational way -- no more than you can debate most Christians about Creationism and their faith.

QFT

My ex was a big southern baptist with the 'whole family' deal. I had to sit untold hours with their preacher and each time I brought science into the mix, he simply quoted a verse. When I said it did not make sense, he said it takes a lifetime to understand.

I love ID though...what a new way to spin evolution.

Personally though I think there may be some creator. It may be just two atoms bumping into each other though at the right moment. Still at the same time I believe if we did have some omnipotent being creating us, then denying his involvement....he'd have built us to adapt ...ergo evolve.

Much of the creation/science debate is focused on the goals not the events that shape it.