September 11,2001 - the official story revisited
Comments
-
Is "not watchful" a typo?
It's "the result" of changing a sentence while trying to rephrase and then forgetting to delete the word "not" 😪
-
That is something I would do! I understood what you meant.
-
-
It takes a bit of time to read, and a bit of willingness to think for oneself ... and a lot will make sense (unless "politically colored false patriotism glasses" prohibit reading) ...
-
I read it. Possible, but not likely. It's an over reach in speculations. It could only be likely if there are many soul-less people existed in many countries.
One would have to believe:
· Bin Laden was reportedly in a Pakistani Army hospital in Rawalpindi having dialysis on the day before the attacks and may still have been under medical care, so the timing is curious if he was indeed one of the masterminds.
· Also, in his first recorded comment on 9/11, bin Laden’s immediate response was that he didn’t have anything to do with it.
and a few other nonsense. CM
PS. If one can't accept to truth, why not make it up? 🤔
-
@Wolfgang posted:
It takes a bit of time to read, and a bit of willingness to think for oneself ... and a lot will make sense (unless "politically colored false patriotism glasses" prohibit reading) ...
As one who is more than "a bit" willing to think for himself, and one whose "politically colored false patriotism glasses" did not prohibit him from reading the article to which you linked, Wolfgang, I have to say that I was not a bit surprised by its evidence-free set of speculations. Any argument whose concluding salvos twice employ some form of the word "speculate" (i.e. "speculative" and "speculation") is not likely strong. But those words aren't a surprise to those "a bit" willing to think for themselves given the article's opening paragraph's reference to "speculating over what actually occurred at the Pentagon and at Shanksville Pennsylvania."
My grandfather was a pastor who summarized his approach to preaching this way:
- Tell then what you're going to tell them.
- Tell them.
- Then tell them what you just told them.
That's the essential structure of the article to which you linked. The author tells us he's going to speculate. He then speculates. And to close, he reminds us that he just speculated. That's not much of an argument, but I give him credit for having a plan.
-
🙈 🙉 🙈
-
Every alleged scientific fact began with speculation.
-
@byGeorge posted:
Every alleged scientific fact began with speculation.
I don't know what you mean by "alleged" scientific facts. Please explain. In the scientific method, "hypotheses" are proposed explanations of observed outcomes which are then tested and peer-reviewed for accuracy. Is that what you mean by an "alleged scientific fact"?
More broadly, I question the significance of your observation. Every president of the United States began as a newborn baby, but that doesn't mean every newborn baby will be president of the United States; in fact, most newborn babies will not be president of the United States. Being a newborn baby has basically no predictive value when it comes to whether a person will become president of the United States. Similarly, there's little if anything predictive about something's being "speculation." If there's still no evidence to support a claim about the 9/11 attacks, now 20 years later - and by definition, "speculation" has no firm evidence behind it - then in my view, there's no reason to label that claim a scientific hypothesis.
-
Suppose you can explain or justify your statement above. Isn't it irresponsible to call individuals and country governments specific names, blaming them for being indifferent, cover-up, and evil criminals? Isn't there a law in the US against such? CM
-
I did not discuss any scientific hypothesis. A hypothesis is not a fact.
God knows the facts. Science discovers God's facts and describes them with what they allege are scientific facts. Those scientific "facts" may or not actually be facts. Thus, they are alleged. In most cases, they probably are authentic.
Historic facts are not the same as scientific facts.
Speculation predicts nothing. But most if not all of what science has determined to be fact, began as speculation, was tested per scientific method, and ended up as a "fact." Humans by nature speculate before concluding. To deny the validity of speculation is to deny the validity of conclusion. A thinking person is not likely to accept that.
-
@byGeorge posted:
God knows the facts. Science discovers God's facts and describes them with what they allege are scientific facts. Those scientific "facts" may or not actually be facts. Thus, they are alleged. In most cases, they probably are authentic.
In science, scientific "facts" are more than allegations; they are what the scientific community accepts as truth because a strong consensus has developed as a result of extensive testing from many sources. Subject to correction from future science, yes - e.g. Newton's version of gravity, which was replaced as scientific fact by Einstein's concept of warped spacetime, was true for hundreds of years and still informally describes gravity's effects in day-to-day life. - but in their time, scientific "facts" are accepted as accurate descriptions of reality. In the modern world, it is an accepted scientific fact that the universe is expanding. Given the massive amount of testing and data that support that assertion, the odds that it's not "true" are miniscule. Scientific "facts" aren't just possible, available, or alleged descriptions and explanations of reality. They are widely accepted explanations and descriptions grounded in repeated observation, testing, and broad community consensus.
None of the baseless assertions of fact that comprise the 9/11 conspiracy theories has a glimmer of hope of ever being proven true because they are falsehoods as well as speculations.
Historic facts are not the same as scientific facts.
I agree.
Speculation predicts nothing. But most if not all of what science has determined to be fact, began as speculation, was tested per scientific method, and ended up as a "fact." Humans by nature speculate before concluding. To deny the validity of speculation is to deny the validity of conclusion. A thinking person is not likely to accept that.
My point is that baseless speculation - speculation for which there is no evidence - needs to be identified and demoted in public discourse. 9/11 conspiracy theories don't deserve the same level of public respect and trust as do the widely accepted explanations that we know to be grounded in science and reality.
-
In science, scientific "facts" are more than allegations;
Indeed. I might mention that in your post above you conflate scientific facts and scientific laws. You may not have a science background, so it doesn't matter, except when you allege an unscientific conclusion.
None of the baseless assertions of fact that comprise the 9/11 conspiracy theories has a glimmer of hope of ever being proven true because they are falsehoods as well as speculations.
Be honest. You are stating your opinion. You are not stating facts as you claim. However, my opinion in general is somewhat like yours.
-
@byGeorge posted:
Indeed. I might mention that in your post above you conflate scientific facts and scientific laws. You may not have a science background, so it doesn't matter, except when you allege an unscientific conclusion.
Our exchange has drifted far afield when we're discussing scientific nomenclature rather than the subject of this thread.
The focus of my previous post was NOT about Newton's law of universal gravitation expressed in the famous equation that reports the gravitational attraction between two objects as a function of their respective masses, the distance between them, and a gravitational constant. Rather my focus was the root cause of that attraction. Newton assumed that gravity was an innate force of objects, while Einstein contended that at the root of gravitational attraction was objects' warping of spacetime. Newton's law as expressed in his equation was not the concern of my previous post; its assumption about the cause of gravitational attraction was.
Be honest. You are stating your opinion. You are not stating facts as you claim. However, my opinion in general is somewhat like yours.
Please quote for me the section of my previous post in which I claimed that my assertions about 9/11 conspiracy theories were "facts."
That noted, I appreciate the common ground revealed by your (general) agreement with my claims about science "facts" and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
-
Please quote for me the section of my previous post in which I claimed that my assertions about 9/11 conspiracy theories were "facts."
I didn't say that. Neither did you. Your request isn't possible. I am sorry for your misunderstanding.
-
@byGeorge posted:
I didn't say that. Neither did you. Your request isn't possible. I am sorry for your misunderstanding.
I felt confident that my request wasn't possible, given that I hadn't claimed was I asserting "facts" when it came to the truthfulness of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
But I also felt confident that you had asserted that I had made such a claim. Since you now tell me that you didn't make such an assertion, I have to ask what you meant when you wrote (emphasis added)...
"Be honest. You are stating your opinion. You are not stating facts as you claim."
When you contended that I claimed I was stating facts, what did you mean? It sure reads as if you believed I had claimed my assertions were "facts," which is why in my reply I asked you to quote from my post the section in which I claimed my assertions were "facts."
-
After re-reading my posts above, I find them to be sound and clear. If anyone else is disoriented by them, I might have interest in clarifying further for them.
-
@byGeorge posted:
After re-reading my posts above, I find them to be sound and clear. If anyone else is disoriented by them, I might have interest in clarifying further for them.
More common ground. We agree that what you wrote was clear.
-
-
Posters,
Could this help explain why Towel One and Two came down about the same time and so smoothly (control collapsed)? 🤔🤔🤔 CM
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
