Parting Shot

[aggle-rithm]

I'm going to stop contributing to this forum, now, although I'll probably continue to lurk. I'd like to say that I have appreciated the level of intelligence shown here, which is much higher than I've come to expect of a lot of CT forums. Also, I appreciate the mod/admins' willingness to allow us to present our viewpoint.

My central problem with the CT viewpoint is not that it conflicts with the government's "official story". It's that the type of logic used to come to the "inside job" conclusion can be used to prove or disprove anything -- essentially making it meaningless and useless.

Take the example of the geo-centric universe. Using the same sort of logic I have seen used on this forum, I could state that the Sun and all the planets revolve around the Earth. If you countered that scientists have known for years that this is not the case, I could simply say, "That is the official story. It's flawed. I can tell by looking up in the sky that everything orbits the Earth".

When you say that scientists have worked out the mathematics of the various heliocentric orbits to great precision, I can say, "that's just a mathematical model. Do you have a link to a video SHOWING the Earth revolving around the Sun?"

If you say that Newton and Einstein were able to make extremely accurate predictions from this mathematical model, I can say, "They were obviously shills. They were working from invalid assumptions."

And so on, and so on.

I believe that conspiracy theories spring forth from the belief that any momentous event is caused by an equally momentous intent. It's scary to think that terrible chains of events can be set in motion by very small deviations from the norm.

Eight years ago my wife's aunt died when she slipped and fell down in the shower. The thought that an entire lifetime of experiences can be snuffed out by a single misstep is disturbing, to say the least. I don't blame people for trying to find more meaning in such events than the evidence warrents...it's human nature. But, at some point, we have to return to reality.

A few years back I visited NASA and purchased a video describing the investigation into the Challenger disaster in 1986. I finished the video with the same knowledge that I had before -- that the horrible incident was caused by a faulty O-ring -- but felt strangely comforted. That's because the investigators were able to piece together EXACTLY what had happened. They now knew what went wrong and how to prevent it in the future. It's that knowledge that gave the incident meaning.

Conspiracy theorists ask, "How can a bunch of guys sitting in a cave half a world away outmaneuver the entire US military?" You may as well ask, "How can a piece of rubber kill seven astronauts and bring the entire US space program to a screeching halt?" The answer is simple: Relatively small events can have grave consequences. It's happened before, and it will happen again. All we can do when this happened is try to find out what went wrong, and try to prevent further carnage in the future.

That's what the various entities who have investigated 9/11 have tried to do. Sure, the conclusions are not as cut-and-dried as they were in the space shuttle investigation, which was essentially a technical problem. With 9/11, however, there were social and political forces at work, too. We may never know the "correct" answers to some of these questions, but we do have an astonishingly accurate picture of the physics of what happened.

What we critics take issue with is the rejection of this picture based soley on incredulity. Logically, there are several ways to go: You can accept the conclusion of the experts at face value, you can become an expert yourself and analyze their conclusions, or you can reject any expert opinion and take the view that we cannot know what happened.

Conspiracy theorists take a fourth option: Reject the expert's conclusions, and substitute their own opinions. This is absolute rubbish.

So, then...goodbye, and I wish you all luck with your rich fantasy life!

[chek]

Well AR, I would also like to comment that you have been one of the more reasoned of our band of critics - although obviously we have had our differences on this central issue.

While your supposition of the human need to find sense in a chaotic universe is but a single possibility out of many, I can only say that I think the events discussed will prove differently, to the benefit of us all.

So until next time - keep an open mind.

[Bushwacker]

Good post, as always, aggle-rithm. You will be missed!

[James C]

Hi aggle-rithm,

It will be a shame to see you go and I thank you for raising more questions than I would care to do. I genuinely hope that you do find time to come back. One of the ideas behind forums is to extend the debate in question. Any opinion is a necessary part of the equation.

I don't know how old you are, maybe young, maybe old, but I find as I get older that I question what the so called 'experts' say a lot more. In fact, I've come to realize that there are very few experts in the world and yet everyone will claim to be one at some stage in their life. Just be wary of taking any advice at face value from such people, especially those in power.

Hope to speak to you again in the future, perhaps when the truth comes out.

[blackcat]

Bye bye Aggle - go take up smoking. Loads of experts testified that it is harmless so it must be the case. They weren't paid by vested interests to enable evil people to keep making billions of dollars in profits while millions died - no sir - it doesn't happen. Experts can be trusted just like governments. So when things are blatantly NOT what experts say just suspend disbelief and stop thinking altogether. Now go have a nice puff - move along now - nothing to see here.

[Patrick Brown]

Ironic that you're off AR as I was just having one of those “sense of doubt” moments while reading this PDF: http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wt ... TC_ch2.pdf

But alas building 7 comes back to haunt us all and not just that but all those little inconsistencies and coincidences. As I said a while back when asked “what was your smoking gun” I just find the inconsistencies and coincidences too much and too many to be rationally accepted. Yes Jung's synchronicity may have a grain of truth in it but lets not get carried a way.

Without simple stark evidence proving the OCT many of us will continue to pursue the truth of 911. I'm still at 99% and remain open minded. The only problem is as time passes the truth may be blurred into a comedy of errors but I doubt it will be amusing.

Any way good luck fluffy.

But remember the foot will always be here if you get the urge!

[Ignatz]

See you around aggle, and thanks for all the good sense you've posted here

[scubadiver]

When you say that scientists have worked out the mathematics of the various heliocentric orbits to great precision, I can say, "that's just a mathematical model. Do you have a link to a video SHOWING the Earth revolving around the Sun?"

The irony is that you would prefer to believe the mathematical models of NIST and FEMA and completely disregard the video evidence which any one can view on the internet at any time.

Questioning the official version of the sun revolving round the earth was almost a death sentence. Questioning the official version is also considered heresy and it is our duty to question it.

[James C]

See you around aggle, and thanks for all the good nonsense you've posted here

As was common for aggle-rithm to do to other people's posts, I've just corrected your post Ignatz.

[Anti-sophist]

The irony is that you would prefer to believe the mathematical models of NIST and FEMA and completely disregard the video evidence which any one can view on the internet at any time.

You should try reading his post again. He deals with this issue directly. His problem with conspiracy theorists is their anti-scientific approach and their direct rejection of science. You honestly believe that "looking" at and "guessing" using your intuition is more accurate than the math and science we've built up over the centuries.

[James C]

The irony is that you would prefer to believe the mathematical models of NIST and FEMA and completely disregard the video evidence which any one can view on the internet at any time.

You should try reading his post again. He deals with this issue directly. His problem with conspiracy theorists is their anti-scientific approach and their direct rejection of science. You honestly believe that "looking" at and "guessing" using your intuition is more accurate than the math and science we've built up over the centuries.

Where's the math and science to prove that god does or doesn't exist. I trust you are attending the many religious forums on the internet to help that debate?

As aggle-rithm pointed out in his post on this thread, where was the math and science to help the passengers of the space shuttle?

[Anti-sophist]

Where's the math and science to prove that god does or doesn't exist. I trust you are attending the many religious forums on the internet to help that debate?

You mean like the Intelligent Design forums that I frequent all the time debunking the same gibberish? You'd be amazed how identical and anti-scientific conspiracy theorists and Intelligent designers are. You guys are the same irrational creature, attacking science, and basing your entire position on logical fallacy.

The main difference is you guys mix in abject paranoia for good measure. I have no desire to defend the merits of science to you. I'm perfectly happy to just force you to admit that you don't believe in science and you reject it's validity. It makes me happy every time I ask you to provide analysis to back up your guesses, and you change the subject to some new guesses.

[scubadiver]

The irony is that you would prefer to believe the mathematical models of NIST and FEMA and completely disregard the video evidence which any one can view on the internet at any time.

You should try reading his post again. He deals with this issue directly. His problem with conspiracy theorists is their anti-scientific approach and their direct rejection of science. You honestly believe that "looking" at and "guessing" using your intuition is more accurate than the math and science we've built up over the centuries.

The NIST reports are based on mathematical models which are themselves theoretical. They don't know any more what happened in those towers than the rest of us yet you blindly support it?

What I do know for sure is that those towers came down at near free fall speed into the path of most resistance. Don't say they didn't because it IS in the official 9/11 Commission report. They can't ignore something that millions of people saw with their own eyes.

[John White]

Aww go on AS, link us some threads so we could have a look at you purging the heretically non scientific, it would be cool

Sorry to see you go Aggle-Rythm, we were just getting to understand each other

Would you say you have gained anything from your time posting here?

[Anti-sophist]

The NIST reports are based on mathematical models which are themselves theoretical. They don't know any more what happened in those towers than the rest of us yet you blindly support it?

False. They have access to more information and more expertise. Unless you consider yourself equally competent at analyzing building collapse physics as NIST. I really wish you would just admit that you believe that, considering you imply it in every post.

What I do know for sure is that those towers came down at near free fall speed into the path of most resistance.

Which are both perfectly explained by basic physics. You are the one claiming it isn't, but you have no analysis.. only guesswork. No one cares about guesses, we care about analysis. Where is yours?

[scubadiver]

I would add I am against Intelligent Design.

[Johnny Pixels]

So why did NIST bother using computer models, if they could get everything they needed from videos? Even if they were making the whole thing up to support the "OCT", they could make it up using video evidence.

Except video guesstimation isn't valid in engineering, so they have to use maths and physics. So video guesstimation is valid for use as a criticism, so get those text books out.

[James C]

Where's the math and science to prove that god does or doesn't exist. I trust you are attending the many religious forums on the internet to help that debate?

You mean like the Intelligent Design forums that I frequent all the time debunking the same gibberish? You'd be amazed how identical and anti-scientific conspiracy theorists and Intelligent designers are. You guys are the same irrational creature, attacking science, and basing your entire position on logical fallacy.

The main difference is you guys mix in abject paranoia for good measure. I have no desire to defend the merits of science to you. I'm perfectly happy to just force you to admit that you don't believe in science and you reject it's validity. It makes me happy every time I ask you to provide analysis to back up your guesses, and you change the subject to some new guesses.

Do you have any time to do some real work or do you spend all day on the forums?

And who are you to say that I reject science? Where is your proof?

How many times do I have to tell you, which makes me wonder how clever you really are, that I don't need mathematics to explain the situation, it can be explained purely by structural principles alone. Since you ask me to describe mathematically a situation for which I have absolutely no data whether it be the weight of the building, the stresses on the columns, the material properties and so on, how can I possibly do this? Perhaps you'd like to show me your calculations, or even the mathematical modelling as used by NIST, but please only the stuff that is actually based upon fact and not assumptions.

Whether there is a god or not I don't really care but somehow I have eyes and a brain and the two together are very good at interpreting visual evidence. If everything just came down to maths, I'm sure there would be no point in having eyes.

When you drive, do you do so by mathematical reasoning and scientifc laws or is there some intuition based upon your experience as a driver and the interpretation of visual and aural signals by your brain? Any thoughts on that or do you need to consult your science dictionary for an answer?

Perhaps you should read this book; The Tao of Physics

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
First published in 1975, The Tao of Physics rode the wave of fascination in exotic East Asian philosophies. Decades later, it still stands up to scrutiny, explicating not only Eastern philosophies but also how modern physics forces us into conceptions that have remarkable parallels. Covering over 3,000 years of widely divergent traditions across Asia, Capra can't help but blur lines in his generalizations. But the big picture is enough to see the value in them of experiential knowledge, the limits of objectivity, the absence of foundational matter, the interrelation of all things and events, and the fact that process is primary, not things. Capra finds the same notions in modern physics. Those approaching Eastern thought from a background of Western science will find reliable introductions here to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism and learn how commonalities among these systems of thought can offer a sort of philosophical underpinning for modern science. And those approaching modern physics from a background in Eastern mysticism will find precise yet comprehensible descriptions of a Western science that may reinvigorate a hope in the positive potential of scientific knowledge. Whatever your background, The Tao of Physics is a brilliant essay on the meeting of East and West, and on the invaluable possibilities that such a union promises. --Brian Bruya

Review
"A brilliant best-seller. . . . Lucidly analyzes the tenets of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism to show their striking parallels with the latest discoveries in cyclotrons."— New York Magazine "A pioneering book of real value and wide appeal."— Washington Post

Book Description
After a quarter of a century in print, Capra's groundbreaking work still challenges and inspires. This updated edition of The Tao of Physics includes a new preface and afterword in which the author reviews the developments of the twenty-five years since the book's first publication, discusses criticisms the book has received, and examines future possibilities for a new scientific world.

About the Author
Fritjof Capra has done research in theoretical high-energy physics at the University of Paris; the University of California; Stanford University; and Imperial College, London. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Vienna. He is currently a lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley.

I look forward to you showing and explaining your calculations as I have for some time now!

[conspiracy analyst]

Rummie been given the boot and all the rats are leaving the sinking ship.

Shame. They should stay on board and face the music.

Charlatans.

[Anti-sophist]

How many times do I have to tell you, which makes me wonder how clever you really are, that I don't need mathematics to explain the situation, it can be explained purely by structural principles alone.

That pretty much says all there is that needs to be said. Considering structural principles are expressed mathematically, you've just summed up the extent of your ignorance in a self-contradictory pile of gibberish that is relatively par for the course. Thanks for proving my point for me.

When you drive, do you do so by mathematical reasoning and scientifc laws or is there some intuition based upon your experience as a driver and the interpretation of visual and aural signals by your brain? Any thoughts on that or do you need to consult your science dictionary for an answer?

More attacks on science, I see. Intuition is not useless. It is very useful. It is, unfortunately, often wrong in instances outside our normal experiences. This is well evidenced every single day on this forum. Intuition is not strong proof and, in science, it is meaningless. Claiming a situation that _can_ be analyzed scientifically should be analyzed _intuitively_ for any reason other than expediency is, quite literally, an attack on the validity of science.

There are two reasons to use intuition, instead of science: when science is inapplicable (belief in god, for instance), and when there isn't enough time.

If you care about accuracy, which is -all- we care about, science is superior to intuition in every measurable way. Attempting to provide examples requiring expedient analysis (ie, driving down the street) in an attempt to justify your substituting of intuition for actual science is missing the entire point.

[James C]

How many times do I have to tell you, which makes me wonder how clever you really are, that I don't need mathematics to explain the situation, it can be explained purely by structural principles alone.

That pretty much says all there is that needs to be said. Considering structural principles are expressed mathematically, you've just summed up the extent of your ignorance in a self-contradictory pile of gibberish that is relatively par for the course. Thanks for proving my point for me.

When you drive, do you do so by mathematical reasoning and scientifc laws or is there some intuition based upon your experience as a driver and the interpretation of visual and aural signals by your brain? Any thoughts on that or do you need to consult your science dictionary for an answer?

More attacks on science, I see. Intuition is not useless. It is very useful. It is, unfortunately, often wrong in instances outside our normal experiences. This is well evidenced every single day on this forum. Intuition is not strong proof and, in science, it is meaningless. Claiming a situation that _can_ be analyzed scientifically should be analyzed _intuitively_ for any reason other than expediency is, quite literally, an attack on the validity of science.

There are two reasons to use intuition, instead of science: when science is inapplicable (belief in god, for instance), and when there isn't enough time.

If you care about accuracy, which is -all- we care about, science is superior to intuition in every measurable way. Attempting to provide examples requiring expedient analysis (ie, driving down the street) in an attempt to justify your substituting of intuition for actual science is missing the entire point.

You're dodging the issues as usual.

I'm still waiting for your calculations. You know, the ones based upon your own personal evidence of what damage the aircraft caused in each tower, the extent of the fires, etc etc. After all, your own argument is soley based upon it according to you. So come on, show me, why do you keep on using the word gibberish (still poor use of english by the way) and making pointless rhetoric, if it's only the science and math that matter?

If you don't show us then I guess we'll just have to start ignoring you. No one likes a charlatan.

[Anti-sophist]

I'm still waiting for your calculations.

Yes, this is a logical fallacy used by intelligent designer also. You make a claim and then demand to be proven wrong. You are the one making claims that certain things are impossible, or that because of A, B must or must not follow. The burden of proof lies with you.

It's not my job to disprove your unsubstantiated claims. That is not how logic works.

After all, your own argument is soley based upon it according to you.

My argument is that -your- conclusions aren't based on science and are generally incorrect given the evidence. I _can_ prove those claims by showing you where your guesses are, and asking you to provide evidence of your claims. My claim is that your guesses are unsubstantiated. That is easy evidence to provide, given the fact that your entire set of claims is based upon your ability to guess.

If you don't show us then I guess we'll just have to start ignoring you. No one likes a charlatan.

Stolen straight from the Intelligent Design playbook. Make ridiculous claim. Declare victory "until proven wrong".

[scubadiver]

The burden of proof lies with you.

The burden of proof lies with the US Government.

[Patrick Brown]

Perhaps you should read this book; The Tao of Physics

I've always loved Taoism it keeps it “simple stupid” which is what is really happening all around us. From the freezing out of pure energy cascading down to the creation of the earliest particles and the volution of the fall into matter all has been very simple.

The events of 911 are too complex as there are too many anomalies which are not explained. All the coincidences alone do not point to natural events. The truth of 911 may be far more complex than any of us realise but the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 will I'm sure remain a thorn in the side of the American government for a very long time.

No stress just curiosity although the curiosity is more about the possibility that a small group of individuals exist who think they can fool the whole world and get away with it! We know that they can't get away with it as even in death the truth will find their lie.

Division is the enemy of the whole and creates a hole. This is the pit of fear that stops you questioning. Don't get into that hole of fear get into the whole that is the simple life that a person would live. This sounds like a paradox and semantics but most of the dualistic thoughts you have are just memes invented to imprison you within your mind and deny you reality.

[Anti-sophist]

The burden of proof lies with you.

The burden of proof lies with the US Government.

And when you claim their story is physically impossible, you need to back it up with evidence. It becomes your claim, at that point.

Equally, when I claim that your evidence is unscientific and lacks evidence, it's on me to show that your claim is unscientific and lacks evidence.

[scubadiver]

The burden of proof lies with you.

The burden of proof lies with the US Government.

And when you claim their story is physically impossible, you need to back it up with evidence. It becomes your claim, at that point.

Equally, when I claim that your evidence is unscientific and lacks evidence, it's on me to show that your claim is unscientific and lacks evidence.

Why do you refer to "scientific" evidence? Not all evidence necessarily has a scientific basis. A reference to the collapses perhaps? An argument that is just a part of the whole event. Unlike what you do to others I keep the big picture in mind.

If the evidence for sole Al-Qaeda involvement is there why don't they just release it? It can't be that difficult, surely.

Are you saying that witness statements cannot be constituted as evidence in a court of law?

Are you saying that 250+ mainstream media reports in the following link, all of which are connected to 9/11 in one way or the other, are to be ignored.

http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

Most of it maybe circumstantial but that doesn't mean to say its invalid.

[ian neal]

I appreciate the sentiment and the civility of your posting.

I suspect you leave us still with some misapprehensions over what 'we' are really saying (not that we all speak with one message), but some of the responsibility for this probably lies with 'us' as much as you. Feel free to return. I believe we are far more rational and evidence based than your post suggests, but no matter

Best wishes

Ian

[Anti-sophist]

Equally, when I claim that your evidence is unscientific and lacks evidence, it's on me to show that your claim is unscientific and lacks evidence.

Why do you refer to "scientific" evidence? Not all evidence necessarily has a scientific basis.A reference to the collapses perhaps? An argument that is just a part of the whole event. Unlike what you do to others I keep the big picture in mind.

You should have just said what you meant. The concept of "scientific evidence" is gibberish. You are right. All evidence is evidence. I actually misspoke and you were right to call me on it. I don't even know what "non-scientific" evidence even means.

What I meant to say is that your claims are unscientific by virtue of the fact that they lack either evidence or sound analysis. When you are guessing at how the science would work (as is done here in a daily basis on CTers), you aren't providing evidence. You are guessing. CTists don't seem to understand the difference between proof/evidence and analysis and just plain guesswork.

If the evidence for sole Al-Qaeda involvement is there why don't they just release it? It can't be that difficult, surely.

You mean like Bin Ladin admitting it on tape? Let me ask you a better question, name for me what piece of evidence would convince you that it was Al-Qaeda. This is an useful exercise to demonstrate that your claim is falsifiable.

Are you saying that witness statements cannot be constituted as evidence in a court of law?

Of course not. Who said that it wasn't? Are you saying that eye witnesses are always right? Eye witness testimony must be taken as a whole and taken as a consensus. CTers cherry pick eye witness and ignore the 100s that debunk them. CTers will frequently quote an eye witness for one part of his statement, ignoring the second of half of his statement that debunks them.

Are you saying that 250+ mainstream media reports in the following link, all of which are connected to 9/11 in one way or the other, are to be ignored.
http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

250 stories versus tens of thousands. Maybe hundreds of thousands. Killtown has found 250, most of which prove nothing. The number of uncorrected and reputable media reports that are "smoking guns" is exactly 0.

Most of it maybe circumstantial but that doesn't mean to say its invalid.

It's overvalued and overweighted by CTists. Even worse, it's unevenly weighted. They highly value circumstantial evidence that supports their conclusions, and ignore the evidence that doesn't. It's an unscientific approach.

[scubadiver]

WHAT evidence is there for the OCT, may I ask?

Maybe hundreds of thousands of stories? Can you kindly tell me what you are referring to?

[Anti-sophist]

WHAT evidence is there for the OCT, may I ask?

Maybe hundreds of thousands of stories? Can you kindly tell me what you are referring to?

Huh? What evidence for the official story? How about 100 videos of planes flying into buildings. You know that planes flying into buildings is part of the official story, right? Maybe you want to be more specific before asking such an open-ended question.