Welcome to the "Last Word Café".

[solanoid]

Mr F.

What can you tell me about the THIRD building that fell down on 9/11?

[Mr. Flibble]

Mr F.

What can you tell me about the THIRD building that fell down on 9/11?

I can tell you that attributing it to a conspiracy is extremely unlikely. Is it possible that there was a conspiracy in line with terrorists plotting to bring down building 3 at the same time as planes flew into other buildings, and, that unbeknownst to the people working in building 3, a skilled demolitions team entered and was able to plant enough explosives in just the right spots to cause it to fail and fall to the ground.

Or, building 3 sustained damage from 2 other giant buildings nearby collapsing and fell as a result of this.

One of those scenarios seems more likely to me than the other.

[solanoid]

Well,

I respect your opinions however, I urge you to research the subject before making a decision. We dont need to agree, as long as we are civil, and diplomatic.

[Mr. Flibble]

Well,

I respect your opinions however, I urge you to research the subject before making a decision. We dont need to agree, as long as we are civil, and diplomatic.

I have researched it. None of the conspiracy evidence passes even the most basic scientific merit.

If there was convincing evidence - not a lack of evidence - but pure hard proven evidence - I would be willing to change my mind. I see no reason to change my mind until tangible evidence exists.

[solanoid]

Ok,

You are suggesting that a skyscraper fell down (perfectly)two blocks away from where the wtc's fell on account of "shrapnel/debris" ?Not to mention that this was discussed by the media only a handfull of times after the incident, many people to this day dont know about tower 3. It also just happens that there were f.b.i. offices and homeland security offices in there which contained much sensitive information. Furthermore, during the "investigation" tower 3 was not even mentioned.

I know that I wont be able to convince you of any of this, and thats fine. So, as far as you are concerned, the govenments are just upstanding, honest people trying to do whats right huh, looking out for their citizens.

......!?

[ealanm]

I believe there is a cabal of evil men trying to destroy the world by disseminating conspiracy theories. Or maybe they're aliens.

[fexlboi]

As this discussion has nothing to do with the topic of this forum it lives now in a good place: "Last Word Cafe"

[Mr. Flibble]

As this discussion has nothing to do with the topic of this forum it lives now in a good place: "Last Word Cafe"

I agree that it belongs here, but having a single thread dedicated to off topic discussions is very cumbersome. It makes it impossible to follow any off topic discussions as people end up cross posting. In the long run it is probably more proactive to have a dedicated off topic forum.

[Mr. Flibble]

Ok,

You are suggesting that a skyscraper fell down (perfectly)two blocks away from where the wtc's fell on account of "shrapnel/debris" ?Not to mention that this was discussed by the media only a handfull of times after the incident, many people to this day dont know about tower 3. It also just happens that there were f.b.i. offices and homeland security offices in there which contained much sensitive information. Furthermore, during the "investigation" tower 3 was not even mentioned.

I know that I wont be able to convince you of any of this, and thats fine. So, as far as you are concerned, the govenments are just upstanding, honest people trying to do whats right huh, looking out for their citizens.

......!?

I am suggesting that the impact of flying debris from two of the largest buildings in the world is very likely to have caused a structural failure in a nearby building.

The fact that it was not discussed by the media is not evidence, it is absense of evidence. Same with the FBI - I mean why would they WANT to blow up their own building? It is like me hiding bombs in my Delica - why on earth would I do that.

There are other scenarios.

Take for example the following facts.

Terrorism was rampant in Northern Ireland and the Government was trying to Combat it.
Terrorism in the UK was largely sponsored by people from the United States.
Ireland and the US share sensitive security data surrounding terrorism
The World Trade Center Buildings housed a massive collection of Gold for SEC purposes
Leprachauns have been known in Ireland for Generations
Leprachauns have never appeared on film
After 9/11 the funding for terrorism in the UK dried up from the US.

From the following facts we can prove that the US government knew that the attacks were coming, and shared this information with the Irish. Siezing this opportunity they employed Leprachauns which are known to never have appeared on film. Leprachauns only desire Gold - so they were motivated by the opportunity to steal gold from the SEC vaults that were soon to be buried by the terrorist attacks.

Therefore, Leprachauns assisted in the Demolition of the WTC buildings as they are more adept at this type of covert operation as they cannot appear on film.

The Irish Government specifically employed Leprachauns to ensure that the terrorist threats would work, and in doing so they were able to finally stop the terrorisim on their own home soil.

It is a clear fact that the Irish Government employed Leprachauns to bring down the buildings in order to stop terrorisim in Ireland.

[Mr. Pistachio]

Have you folks seen Zombieland!

If so, That's why I got myself a Delica, when the WTC went down, it created a hole to the center of the earth and the zombies will come out of that breach! Asweel as the breach created by the Big One (still to ome)! That's why there's so many Delicas in Vancouver, the big one! The Delica is a perfect vehicule to fight zombies! Diesel (long range) Van type so you can live in it, RHD so they'll be confused where's the driver, community wise, there's way more usefull knowledge in the Delica community then anywhere else, every Delica as a skid plate and rugged under body so no worries about crushing them!

That's my 2 cents!

[solanoid]

Alright Mr F.,

I see where this is going, I must admit that your ignorance frustrates me. However, we can still be friends even though you dont posses the ability to conjure your own thoughts. People like you need to be taken by the wrist and guided through life at every turn, and thats ok.

Maybe Ill see you at church sometime .......HAHAHAHH....ASIF!

[Mr. Flibble]

Alright Mr F.,

I see where this is going, I must admit that your ignorance frustrates me. However, we can still be friends even though you dont posses the ability to conjure your own thoughts. People like you need to be taken by the wrist and guided through life at every turn, and thats ok.

Maybe Ill see you at church sometime .......HAHAHAHH....ASIF!

Ignorance? How so? I have researched all the theories surrounding 9/11 and they use postdiction like I just did in my example above.

The burden of proof lies upon the conspiracy theorists to prove their stance. The body of evidence goes against the conspiracy theories. As I mentioned prior, I am willing and able to change my opinions on anything I belive granted I am given enough facts in favour of the new argument.

At this time there are no conclusive facts from the conspiracy side, and they have been demolished wholesale by other people.

I would be interested if someone would provide credible evidence for the conspiracy position.

As for Church, I have read the entire KJV and done Seminary courses on the material therein. I have an excellent understanding of scripture. I do not, however, belive in the Bible, and will admit that openly. (Mostly because of too much time in Church and having read the entire Bible.)

I think you are a good person, even if I don't agree with your point of view on these things. :)

[solanoid]

Alright,

That is respectable, your cool I guess.
but come on a sky scraper falling down from debris!? that is perposterous. All of the interviews with p.engineers I that I have seen discredit the notion that a building could fall under these circumstances.
You must admit thats pretty far fetched. Closer building werent even close to falling. and what about the insurance policy?

[Mr. Flibble]

Alright,

That is respectable, your cool I guess.
but come on a sky scraper falling down from debris!? that is perposterous. All of the interviews with p.engineers I that I have seen discredit the notion that a building could fall under these circumstances.
You must admit thats pretty far fetched. Closer building werent even close to falling. and what about the insurance policy?

Unlikely? Sure, it is unlikely that a building could be damaged by debris. Is it impossible? No. Don't forget there are interviews with engineers who disagree with the ones who said it was impossible for the building to come down.

It is always important when examining an argument to see if it is true to have more than one hypothesis. It is further important, if you believe the Consiracy side to examine the counter arguments. Popular Mechanics has a great online article in this regard with engineers if memory serves correctly.

As for the insurance policy, that is postdiction. It is attributing things to events after the fact. Remember, correlation does not imply causation. This is especially true with coincedinces. Remember, in the United States 1 in a million odds happen 350 times every day!

Whever you examine a logical argument it is always important to remember these tried and tested rules:

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:


* Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
* Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
* Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
* Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
* Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
* Quantify, wherever possible.
* If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
* "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
* Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?


Additional issues are

* Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
* Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.


Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

* Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
* Argument from "authority".
* Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
* Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
* Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
* Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
* Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
* Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
* Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
* Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
* Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
* Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
* Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
* Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
* Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
* Confusion of correlation and causation.
* Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
* Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
* Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

[Mr. Flibble]

Have you folks seen Zombieland!

If so, That's why I got myself a Delica, when the WTC went down, it created a hole to the center of the earth and the zombies will come out of that breach! Asweel as the breach created by the Big One (still to ome)! That's why there's so many Delicas in Vancouver, the big one! The Delica is a perfect vehicule to fight zombies! Diesel (long range) Van type so you can live in it, RHD so they'll be confused where's the driver, community wise, there's way more usefull knowledge in the Delica community then anywhere else, every Delica as a skid plate and rugged under body so no worries about crushing them!

That's my 2 cents!

I agree with this! I love the Zombie Jesus bumper sticker one of the Delica.ca members has!