rhys 0 #1 January 17, 2010 Hi all, Richard Gage and his comrades have now officilly got 1000 bonafide architects and engineers. There is probably alot more but they will not be released as signitories until they are cross checked. http://www.ae911truth.org/"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #2 January 17, 2010 Congratulations. You now have 1000 idiots backing you against 1,000,000 scientists and engineers who actually know what they are talking about. And it has only taken nine years to all 1000. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #3 January 17, 2010 Quote Congratulations. You now have 1000 idiots backing you against 1,000,000 scientists and engineers who actually know what they are talking about. And it has only taken nine years to all 1000. Laugh Architects yeah what a bunch of dooshbags, where are your million guys you speak of? FYI ae911truth has only been in operation for about 3 years!!!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #4 January 17, 2010 Quotewhere are your million guys you speak of? At work: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#emply http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos038.htm#projections_data Less than 1 in a thousand architects and engineers believe in the "truth"_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #5 January 17, 2010 QuoteLess than 1 in a thousand architects and engineers believe in the "truth" your flawed sence of reality is quite astounding. you are saying all architects and engineers that have not signed the petition agree with the official story? You are speaking for thousands of people, some choose not to speak out due to the violent opposition by deniers such as yourself. I met an american engineer and retired US airforce member that has just recently discoverd the ae911 truth site and content. I met him because I overheard him discussing 9/11 with a Belgian guy and was a strong advocate for the group. He told me he was very dissapointed in himself for not being more aware earlier. This is only one example of how your viewpoint is flawed!"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 617 #6 January 17, 2010 QuoteHi all, Richard Gage and his comrades have now officilly got 1000 bonafide architects and engineers. There is probably alot more but they will not be released as signitories until they are cross checked. http://www.ae911truth.org/ more truth Yet more truth Final proofExperienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #7 January 17, 2010 Quotemore truth Yet more truth Final proof WTF,"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #8 January 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteLess than 1 in a thousand architects and engineers believe in the "truth" your flawed sence of reality is quite astounding. you are saying all architects and engineers that have not signed the petition agree with the official story? You are speaking for thousands of people, some choose not to speak out due to the violent opposition by deniers such as yourself. I met an american engineer and retired US airforce member that has just recently discoverd the ae911 truth site and content. I met him because I overheard him discussing 9/11 with a Belgian guy and was a strong advocate for the group. He told me he was very dissapointed in himself for not being more aware earlier. This is only one example of how your viewpoint is flawed! give me the actual number of engineers and architects that didn't sign who believe in the 9/11 inside job. Where is that information that a/e 911 was supposed to supply to congress? they are way overdue._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #9 January 17, 2010 Quoteive me the actual number of engineers and architects that didn't sign who believe in the 9/11 inside job. You logic if it can be called that is nothing more than stupid. That is an impossible task. QuoteIt has been presented multipule times and multipule times it has been reluctantly accepted by them only because it was on camera. We have patience, and we continue to grow strength in numbers while the official narrative ha been changed a number of times. many of you were sure over the past years that a certain hypothesis was the truth and even though the hypothesies have changes more than twice, you still cling to the story that you all believed years ago, even though the NIST have changed thier minds since. AE911truth has continued to shed light in the flawed and inconsistent claims of the NIST report. Still no criminal investigation has been implemented, for the criminals that actually committed the crimes."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #10 January 17, 2010 From the skeptics dictionary: Implausibility of secrecy This and other conspiracy theories that require hundreds or thousands of co-conspirators suffer from the implausibility that comes with expecting human beings not to blow the whistle on the project. The greater the number of people needed to pull off a hoax or a secret crime, the greater the probability that somebody with blow the whistle. Given the number of people who would have to be involved to pull off this crime of the millennium, the Bush Administration 9/11 conspiracy theory has to be off the charts on the implausibility meter. For example, think about the claim made first by Hezbollah, then spread around the anti-Semitic media and blogs, that 4,000 Israelis who worked at the World Trade Center were contacted by the Mossad, warned of the impending attack, and were all absent from work on the day of the attack. Right. Four thousand people are told that terrorists plan to blow up the World Trade Center and not one of them mentions this to the thousands of others who work there? Four thousand people keep their mouths shut about such "information"? Yet, despite the absurdity on its face of such a claim, many people still believe it's true and they can find a website to back them up! The obvious error of the 9/11 deniers is in failing to falsify the claim that 9/11 was planned and executed by 19 Islamic soldiers at war with the United States and directed by Osama bin Laden. Providing alternative explanations for hundreds of events is not the same as falsifying this claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #11 January 17, 2010 My bad. I thought we were playing impossible tasks and wild assumptions: "You are speaking for thousands of people, some choose not to speak out due to the violent opposition by deniers such as yourself." "There is probably alot more but they will not be released as signitories until they are cross checked." Where's that evidence for Congress? Can you give me a date?_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nigel99 617 #12 January 17, 2010 Quote Quote more truth Yet more truth Final proof WTF, Sorry just playing - ae911 seems to fall into the same category as the links I posted so I thought it would add to the pool of strange idea'sIt seems to me that an object flying at high speed and having significant weight will cause alot of damage. It seems to me the biggest "winners" of a so-called 911 conspiracy are the CIA and their associate agencies - after all they were screwed by a handful of arabs with a budget of probably less than US100kExperienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pchapman 279 #13 January 17, 2010 The web site suggests signing the petition if one wants an independent inquiry into finding out the truth. Who is against the truth? Yet the web site seems to be about a theory that the twin towers collapsed due to controlled demolition. It is interesting indeed that some think so, but the thousand signatures don't in themselves mean much to that cause if the petition is presented as simply asking for another inquiry to look for the truth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #14 January 17, 2010 Quote Congratulations. You now have 1000 idiots backing you against 1,000,000 scientists and engineers who actually know what they are talking about. And it has only taken nine years to all 1000. nonsense, I'm sure those 1000 have a "consensus" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites OG-Tahiti 0 #15 January 17, 2010 QuoteLess than 1 in a thousand architects and engineers believe in the "truth" Humm I am no engineer, but I remember my physics lesson pretty well.. A building will NOT fall in freefall speed (you guys know about freefall speed right?). Something breaking down will not fall at the speed of freefall, it has to be brought down to do so. This does NOT imply an inside job, it just obviously proves that a plane does NOT bring down a building at the speed of freefall. I really don't want to start a new heated argument on that subject, and would LOVE for someone giving me an OBVIOUS scientific fact that supports the "pancake theory" (Note the use of THEORY in official documents...) thx :) Edit: best quote from the AE911 site: YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINION, BUT NOT YOUR OWN FACTS."Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire Dudeist Skydiver #9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #16 January 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteLess than 1 in a thousand architects and engineers believe in the "truth" Humm I am no engineer, but I remember my physics lesson pretty well.. A building will NOT fall in freefall speed (you guys know about freefall speed right?). Something breaking down will not fall at the speed of freefall, it has to be brought down to do so. This does NOT imply an inside job, it just obviously proves that a plane does NOT bring down a building at the speed of freefall. I really don't want to start a new heated argument on that subject, and would LOVE for someone giving me an OBVIOUS scientific fact that supports the "pancake theory" (Note the use of THEORY in official documents...) thx :) Edit: best quote from the AE911 site: YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINION, BUT NOT YOUR OWN FACTS. You need to understand the difference between a fact and a theory when referenced in the scientific community. A fact is something known to exist or to have happened. For example, I typed this on a keyboard. That is fact. Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State. That is also a fact. A theory is an idea or explanation (hypothesis) that is backed up by all known facts and has not been disproved. Evolution is theory. Plate tectonics is theory. A theory can never be proven absolutely true, we can only fail to disprove it. For all the wailing the truthers have done, they have yet to disprove a single point in the ex-lanation that the aircraft alone were responsible for the collapse of the buildings. BTW, the truthers claims of the rate of collapse has been disproved by many different people working independently of each other and the government. A google search will help you out.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #17 January 17, 2010 Quote Quote Congratulations. You now have 1000 idiots backing you against 1,000,000 scientists and engineers who actually know what they are talking about. And it has only taken nine years to all 1000. nonsense, I'm sure those 1000 have a "consensus" oh... so it's like global warming. if you get enough scientists to jump on the bandwagon, then it must be true.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #18 January 17, 2010 Quote .... Evolution is theory. Plate tectonics is theory. A theory can never be proven absolutely true, we can only fail to disprove it. For all the wailing the truthers have done, they have yet to disprove a single point in the ex-lanation that the aircraft alone were responsible for the collapse of the buildings. BTW, the truthers claims of the rate of collapse has been disproved by many different people working independently of each other and the government. A google search will help you out. Wow. You are a member of a scientific community? Which one? And tectonic plates are theory? Jeez. There must be a bigger distance between our continents than just The Pond. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites OG-Tahiti 0 #19 January 17, 2010 Well you are right and it kinda proves my point, a theory should be a group of facts that lead to it, which the pancake theory does not seem to be. I think I could look all over google for years I will keep stumbling on two facts: The south tower fell in 10 seconds, and it takes at least 10 seconds for a bowling bowl dropped from the top of the tower to hit the ground... I am not even out of student status but I seem to recall it takes a jumper around 10 seconds to reach terminal velocity, and it also takes about 1000ft to do so. Tower is 1360ish feet and drops in 10ish seconds. I haven't seen anything on the internet that disproves those numbers. I am not saying the tower was brought down by a demolition team or shot from space by a laser (yes it is something I heard, funny one too). I am just looking at the physics numbers and something is WAY off don't you think?"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire Dudeist Skydiver #9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #20 January 17, 2010 so the top of it was 1360 before it fell. how high was it after it fell? (when the clock stopped on that 10 sec) Zero? I doubt it. So do we know the actual delta in altitude?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites OG-Tahiti 0 #21 January 17, 2010 Quoteso the top of it was 1360 before it fell. how high was it after it fell? (when the clock stopped on that 10 sec) Zero? I doubt it. So do we know the actual delta in altitude? Zero "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds" from the 911 commission report: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm edit: Actually to be fair there had to be some structure left at the bottom, so let's just say that the delta is 1000ft, thats 300ft left of structure which is most likely an over estimate. Still 1000ft lost in 10 seconds sounds a lot like freefall in thinner air than at sea level no?"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire Dudeist Skydiver #9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #22 January 17, 2010 so the actual answer is no. we don't know the actual delta.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites airdvr 210 #23 January 17, 2010 Are we really gonna do this again? Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ryoder 1,590 #24 January 17, 2010 "You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #25 January 17, 2010 Quote "You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" Wink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Quote When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood considering AE911truth makes no assumtions, uses basic physics and has a very simply hypothesis, verus a very complex, unlikely and unprecedented hypothesis bought forward by NIST that has been ammended multipule times, who would win using occm razor? who can't handle the truth? To say such a scam would be impossible, due the the number of people that would need to be involved is stupid. if that were the case the FBI and the CIA would not be able to operate the way they do. That is the beauty of AE911 truth as opposed to the plethora of other 9/11 websites, They do not speculate, and do not point the finger, 'the facts speak for themselves'. Meanwhile the NIST refuses to debate the subject, took 7 years to produce thier report and gave only 3 weeks for peer review process. Thier unlikey hypothesis defies physics but is applauded and soaked up to the word by morons that have not even read it. Only afterdid they ammend it to mention freefall accceletation of WTC7 which implies all support columns failed simultainiously, but apparenty from random fires... what a bunch of idiots, not NIST they are quite clever in thier deciet, but the morons that believe that shit. Just in case you deniers did not see the links here is the overview in plain sight. [url "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng"> watch it and then watch the 2nd and third part, maybe then you might learn something. NIST is debunked coherently and fully by a high school physics teacher and they are forced to ammend thier hypothesis. watch it and then watch the 2nd and third part, maybe then you might learn something. For those that think this has been discussed 7 years ago, it has not, it took a long time for WTC7 to even be mentioned and the final report on that building was only released on November 20th (my birthday) 2008."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 1 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jclalor 12 #10 January 17, 2010 From the skeptics dictionary: Implausibility of secrecy This and other conspiracy theories that require hundreds or thousands of co-conspirators suffer from the implausibility that comes with expecting human beings not to blow the whistle on the project. The greater the number of people needed to pull off a hoax or a secret crime, the greater the probability that somebody with blow the whistle. Given the number of people who would have to be involved to pull off this crime of the millennium, the Bush Administration 9/11 conspiracy theory has to be off the charts on the implausibility meter. For example, think about the claim made first by Hezbollah, then spread around the anti-Semitic media and blogs, that 4,000 Israelis who worked at the World Trade Center were contacted by the Mossad, warned of the impending attack, and were all absent from work on the day of the attack. Right. Four thousand people are told that terrorists plan to blow up the World Trade Center and not one of them mentions this to the thousands of others who work there? Four thousand people keep their mouths shut about such "information"? Yet, despite the absurdity on its face of such a claim, many people still believe it's true and they can find a website to back them up! The obvious error of the 9/11 deniers is in failing to falsify the claim that 9/11 was planned and executed by 19 Islamic soldiers at war with the United States and directed by Osama bin Laden. Providing alternative explanations for hundreds of events is not the same as falsifying this claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #11 January 17, 2010 My bad. I thought we were playing impossible tasks and wild assumptions: "You are speaking for thousands of people, some choose not to speak out due to the violent opposition by deniers such as yourself." "There is probably alot more but they will not be released as signitories until they are cross checked." Where's that evidence for Congress? Can you give me a date?_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 617 #12 January 17, 2010 Quote Quote more truth Yet more truth Final proof WTF, Sorry just playing - ae911 seems to fall into the same category as the links I posted so I thought it would add to the pool of strange idea'sIt seems to me that an object flying at high speed and having significant weight will cause alot of damage. It seems to me the biggest "winners" of a so-called 911 conspiracy are the CIA and their associate agencies - after all they were screwed by a handful of arabs with a budget of probably less than US100kExperienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 279 #13 January 17, 2010 The web site suggests signing the petition if one wants an independent inquiry into finding out the truth. Who is against the truth? Yet the web site seems to be about a theory that the twin towers collapsed due to controlled demolition. It is interesting indeed that some think so, but the thousand signatures don't in themselves mean much to that cause if the petition is presented as simply asking for another inquiry to look for the truth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #14 January 17, 2010 Quote Congratulations. You now have 1000 idiots backing you against 1,000,000 scientists and engineers who actually know what they are talking about. And it has only taken nine years to all 1000. nonsense, I'm sure those 1000 have a "consensus" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OG-Tahiti 0 #15 January 17, 2010 QuoteLess than 1 in a thousand architects and engineers believe in the "truth" Humm I am no engineer, but I remember my physics lesson pretty well.. A building will NOT fall in freefall speed (you guys know about freefall speed right?). Something breaking down will not fall at the speed of freefall, it has to be brought down to do so. This does NOT imply an inside job, it just obviously proves that a plane does NOT bring down a building at the speed of freefall. I really don't want to start a new heated argument on that subject, and would LOVE for someone giving me an OBVIOUS scientific fact that supports the "pancake theory" (Note the use of THEORY in official documents...) thx :) Edit: best quote from the AE911 site: YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINION, BUT NOT YOUR OWN FACTS."Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire Dudeist Skydiver #9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #16 January 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteLess than 1 in a thousand architects and engineers believe in the "truth" Humm I am no engineer, but I remember my physics lesson pretty well.. A building will NOT fall in freefall speed (you guys know about freefall speed right?). Something breaking down will not fall at the speed of freefall, it has to be brought down to do so. This does NOT imply an inside job, it just obviously proves that a plane does NOT bring down a building at the speed of freefall. I really don't want to start a new heated argument on that subject, and would LOVE for someone giving me an OBVIOUS scientific fact that supports the "pancake theory" (Note the use of THEORY in official documents...) thx :) Edit: best quote from the AE911 site: YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINION, BUT NOT YOUR OWN FACTS. You need to understand the difference between a fact and a theory when referenced in the scientific community. A fact is something known to exist or to have happened. For example, I typed this on a keyboard. That is fact. Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State. That is also a fact. A theory is an idea or explanation (hypothesis) that is backed up by all known facts and has not been disproved. Evolution is theory. Plate tectonics is theory. A theory can never be proven absolutely true, we can only fail to disprove it. For all the wailing the truthers have done, they have yet to disprove a single point in the ex-lanation that the aircraft alone were responsible for the collapse of the buildings. BTW, the truthers claims of the rate of collapse has been disproved by many different people working independently of each other and the government. A google search will help you out.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #17 January 17, 2010 Quote Quote Congratulations. You now have 1000 idiots backing you against 1,000,000 scientists and engineers who actually know what they are talking about. And it has only taken nine years to all 1000. nonsense, I'm sure those 1000 have a "consensus" oh... so it's like global warming. if you get enough scientists to jump on the bandwagon, then it must be true.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #18 January 17, 2010 Quote .... Evolution is theory. Plate tectonics is theory. A theory can never be proven absolutely true, we can only fail to disprove it. For all the wailing the truthers have done, they have yet to disprove a single point in the ex-lanation that the aircraft alone were responsible for the collapse of the buildings. BTW, the truthers claims of the rate of collapse has been disproved by many different people working independently of each other and the government. A google search will help you out. Wow. You are a member of a scientific community? Which one? And tectonic plates are theory? Jeez. There must be a bigger distance between our continents than just The Pond. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OG-Tahiti 0 #19 January 17, 2010 Well you are right and it kinda proves my point, a theory should be a group of facts that lead to it, which the pancake theory does not seem to be. I think I could look all over google for years I will keep stumbling on two facts: The south tower fell in 10 seconds, and it takes at least 10 seconds for a bowling bowl dropped from the top of the tower to hit the ground... I am not even out of student status but I seem to recall it takes a jumper around 10 seconds to reach terminal velocity, and it also takes about 1000ft to do so. Tower is 1360ish feet and drops in 10ish seconds. I haven't seen anything on the internet that disproves those numbers. I am not saying the tower was brought down by a demolition team or shot from space by a laser (yes it is something I heard, funny one too). I am just looking at the physics numbers and something is WAY off don't you think?"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire Dudeist Skydiver #9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #20 January 17, 2010 so the top of it was 1360 before it fell. how high was it after it fell? (when the clock stopped on that 10 sec) Zero? I doubt it. So do we know the actual delta in altitude?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OG-Tahiti 0 #21 January 17, 2010 Quoteso the top of it was 1360 before it fell. how high was it after it fell? (when the clock stopped on that 10 sec) Zero? I doubt it. So do we know the actual delta in altitude? Zero "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds" from the 911 commission report: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm edit: Actually to be fair there had to be some structure left at the bottom, so let's just say that the delta is 1000ft, thats 300ft left of structure which is most likely an over estimate. Still 1000ft lost in 10 seconds sounds a lot like freefall in thinner air than at sea level no?"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire Dudeist Skydiver #9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #22 January 17, 2010 so the actual answer is no. we don't know the actual delta.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #23 January 17, 2010 Are we really gonna do this again? Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #24 January 17, 2010 "You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor "There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #25 January 17, 2010 Quote "You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" Wink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Quote When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood considering AE911truth makes no assumtions, uses basic physics and has a very simply hypothesis, verus a very complex, unlikely and unprecedented hypothesis bought forward by NIST that has been ammended multipule times, who would win using occm razor? who can't handle the truth? To say such a scam would be impossible, due the the number of people that would need to be involved is stupid. if that were the case the FBI and the CIA would not be able to operate the way they do. That is the beauty of AE911 truth as opposed to the plethora of other 9/11 websites, They do not speculate, and do not point the finger, 'the facts speak for themselves'. Meanwhile the NIST refuses to debate the subject, took 7 years to produce thier report and gave only 3 weeks for peer review process. Thier unlikey hypothesis defies physics but is applauded and soaked up to the word by morons that have not even read it. Only afterdid they ammend it to mention freefall accceletation of WTC7 which implies all support columns failed simultainiously, but apparenty from random fires... what a bunch of idiots, not NIST they are quite clever in thier deciet, but the morons that believe that shit. Just in case you deniers did not see the links here is the overview in plain sight. [url "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng"> watch it and then watch the 2nd and third part, maybe then you might learn something. NIST is debunked coherently and fully by a high school physics teacher and they are forced to ammend thier hypothesis. watch it and then watch the 2nd and third part, maybe then you might learn something. For those that think this has been discussed 7 years ago, it has not, it took a long time for WTC7 to even be mentioned and the final report on that building was only released on November 20th (my birthday) 2008."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
