Let The BBC Pick Your Lotto Numbers

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

Three the EPA and the Bush admin conspired when they opened up Manhattan for "business as usual" even though there were plenty of medical experts screaming that the toxicity of the area was at incredibly high levels. The real casualties from 911 have yet to hit us, in ten years or so there will be an enormous cancer cluster in the area.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...11/ai_105162050

I thought it was safe.

[Macsen]

Wow! Did you get angry at me for asking about the "slim veneer?"

Why do you think I'm angry?

 

Also, I think you're having trouble comprehending the difference between reading a site, and writing a site. Odd, considering your supposed background. You see, I read it and found it interesting, little more. From your vehemence, I'm guessing you think I wrote it. No, no.

This has nothing to do with you reading or writing the site, it's about you agreeing in part with the conclusions the person who did compose that website comes to based on some pretty flimsy evidence. Even entertaining the notion that there might be anything to these fairy tales is pretty daft.

 

I think you're taking this far too close to heart for some reason, as if you were a BBC reporter or nephew of the building owner. I suggest stepping back and relaxing a bit, gaining a new perspective on the thread and website, and not letting it get you unwound. If that fails, just get drunk like you apparently always do; that should do the trick!

Again I don't see why you're accusing me of being wildly emotional about this. I find these conspiracy theories amusing at best, but pointless - but it is worrying when otherwise seemingly intelligent people start listening to them. I don't see why I shouldn't be able to say 'this is stupid' without being angry about it?

 

I'm not sure where you got it into your head that I'm some kind of alcoholic? Or are all journalists supposed to be heavy drinkers? Mayb that could explain the WTC7 mistake - she had a few too many sherries.

 

Sorry if I sound condescending, but if you feel such a need to get personal about it, you'll have to do better than that.

Better than what? You don't sound condescending at all, in fact you've lowered yourself even further in my estimation.

[SneaksieDave]

Why do you think I'm angry?... Again I don't see why you're accusing me of being wildly emotional about this... I don't see why I shouldn't be able to say 'this is stupid' without being angry about it?

Because you don't say 'this is stupid'; you say 'you are stupid.' Or that someone has 'brain wires missing.' Or is 'lower than you.' You see, while everyone else in the thread is able to conduct themselves in a normal social manner, simply posting what they feel in an impersonal way, you lash out with insults for some unknown reason. It makes me curious as to why, as I indicated above (probably a defensiveness for reporters is bringing it to the surface), but not curious enough to bother finding out.

 

Nevermind about the 'slim veneer'; that I am also curious about, but maybe I'll try to find it on my own.

[Maximius]

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...11/ai_105162050

I thought it was safe.

 

 

Thanks for that report, it was very interesting. It certainly challenges much of what I had learned about the toxicity of the area after the planes hit. I based my claims on information like these articles I'm linking too.

 

But the fact remains, even as the article you posted admits there was little to no air quality testing done, and samples were not collected until 5 to 6 days after the attack, yet the Administration gave the "All clear" signal without a clue as to whether or not it was really clear.

 

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_197/mayorjoinsfight.html

 

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/new...egion-apnewyork

 

 

http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=3454

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02192007/posto...dsky.htm?page=2

 

Now this article is critical of the "hysteria" about the health issues surrounding 911. It makes some good points but its also the New York Post, they don't even try to be objective about their ideological orientations.

 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02192007/posto...dsky.htm?page=2

Edited March 2, 2007 by Maximius

[Macsen]

Because you don't say 'this is stupid'; you say 'you are stupid.'

I say both. This is a stupid theory and you are stupid for believing it. I'm not 'lashing out' with insults, I'm just pointing out the facts.

 

Or is 'lower than you.'

I never said you were lower than me. That's fine if you want to believe it.

 

It makes me curious as to why, as I indicated above.

Because it's a conspiracy. You've found me out. I've been smothering the truth about 9/11 by logging onto forums and berating those who are smart enough to have discovered the real facts behind this massive international cover-up which includes all members of government and all BBC reporters.

[SneaksieDave]

Well that's disappointing. I guess I'm about done with this go-between. It appears that you're unable to address the points at hand (there are many to choose from, from items listed on a website to personal opinions about them), and instead continue to go down to the personal insult level without reason. And, you play dumb about any kind of anger, yet you continue to use the same hostile tactics. You seem to infer all knowledge of what a person is thinking, and then argue it with them. I'll move along past it I guess - you're really not worth the effort at all.

 

-You haven't indicated where the 'slim veneer' data is. You may have thought I was being sarcastic, but I was sincere about it.

 

-You haven't demonstrated how a building owner admitting he pulled a building down isn't fact.

 

-You haven't demonstrated how a news source admitting they goofed isn't fact.

 

Where you go with that is up to you, but you seem to be avoiding those points entirely, instead choosing to misquote only the limited context you care to address, spraying the conspiracy word around where it doesn't belong, and calling people stupid. Anyway, don't answer for my sake, I don't really care.

[Nyarlathotep]

I say both. This is a stupid theory and you are stupid for believing it. I'm not 'lashing out' with insults, I'm just pointing out the facts.

I don't care if you strip it naked, paint it purple, glue pink faery wings on it, and hang a sign on it saying, "I am a lark!"; it's still an ad hominem.

[Macsen]

Anyway, don't answer for my sake, I don't really care.

Ok.

 

...

 

Oops!

 

Sneaksie, the onus is not on me to prove that this conspiracy theory is wrong, it is on you to prove that it is true.

I've read the page you linked to, and several others along the same lines, and a few documentaries arguing one side and the other. Until the conspiracy theorists find some proof that would stand up - not just journalist confusion and their interpretation of some of the words used - there's nothing for me to argue against. "The BBC reported it 20 mins early so they must have known they were going to blow it up!" Can you prove that? No. "The owner said 'pull it' so he must have wanted the building blown up!" Can you prove that? No.

 

Asking me to prove that this isn't a conspiracy is like asking me to prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Can you prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist? You can't, can you? Then... it must be true!

[Macsen]

I don't care if you strip it naked, paint it purple, glue pink faery wings on it, and hang a sign on it saying, "I am a lark!"; it's still an ad hominem.

 

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument."

 

There's no substance to this argument so there's nothing to attack but the man!

[Nyarlathotep]

It isn't an ad hominem. Try this on for size, big boy: you wouldn't recognize an ad hominem if it slapped you across the face with a rather large herring. No? Try this, then:

 

This is a stupid theory and you are stupid for believing it.

Ouch! That one really stung! Good job, Macsen! Let's go for the whole play book then!

 

There's no substance to this argument so there's nothing to attack but the man!

Great! Nice fallacy of equivocation there! Subtle, but oh so sharp! I think that's enough for now.</troll>

 

In case you didn't notice, I've been opening mocking your style of debate. Outlandish claims and outrageous statements, however humorous they may be, do not help to establish yourself as a reasoned man. As any master debater(!) knows, your arguments must be fool-proof, but failing that, give yourself the demeanor of a man whose arguments are fool-proof--intimidate your foes into believing they are indeed fool-proof. Your argument about where the burden of proof lies is a great one (if it weren't first built on a straw-man), but just don't go overboard on the humour and hyperbole.

[Maximius]

It isn't an ad hominem. Try this on for size, big boy: you wouldn't recognize an ad hominem if it slapped you across the face with a rather large herring. No? Try this, then:

Ouch! That one really stung! Good job, Macsen! Let's go for the whole play book then!

Great! Nice fallacy of equivocation there! Subtle, but oh so sharp! I think that's enough for now.</troll>

 

In case you didn't notice, I've been opening mocking your style of debate. Outlandish claims and outrageous statements, however humorous they may be, do not help to establish yourself as a reasoned man. As any master debater(!) knows, your arguments must be full proof, but failing that, give yourself the demeanor of a man whose arguments are full proof--intimidate your foes into believing they are indeed full proof. Your argument about where the burden of proof lies is a great one (if it weren't first built on a straw-man), but just don't go overboard on the humour and hyperbole.

 

 

A minor point, I just wanted to point out in a friendly way ,Ny, that its fool-proof, as in tested to protect against idiots, not full-proof. Thank you, please return to your exciting melee!

[Nyarlathotep]

Damn! I knew it didn't look right! I'll edit it real quick before anyone notices

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

It's ok, when engineering gets to me I startr speelling accordingly: frents for friends, doubel faze flow, etcetera

[Nyarlathotep]

But language is my forte! I should always be able to spell!

 

 

 

...Alright, alright, so I'm CS major, not an English major.

[Macsen]

In case you didn't notice, I've been opening mocking your style of debate. Outlandish claims and outrageous statements, however humorous they may be, do not help to establish yourself as a reasoned man.

Reason has no place in my journalistic domain! Mwahahahaha.

 

I know how to debate, Mr Nyarlathotep, it's just that there is nothing in SneaksieDave's argument to debate. If this was a court of law it would be thrown out before the prosecution or defence could make their case because of lack of evidence. Even bringing it before us for debate was an outing too far for this conspiracy - with a little light prodding it fell to pieces.

 

Nevertheless, I did some of my own investigating here and it seems that the woman in the film was standing in front of a screen showing footage shot earlier, before the collapse of WTC7. I can't substantiate this, but it's one of thousands of highly probable explenations.

[SneaksieDave]

Yes, yes, troll it out again. When there's nothing else to argue with, make shit up! How about a nick change to Strawman?

 

Nyarlathotep, he's not even in touch with reality, so it's not really worth it to get into it with him. Again, he demonstrates a misbelief that this is my argument, or my beliefs and claims (as opposed to a posted link), or that something needs debating when building owners admit to acts presented (indeed, there is nothing to argue), or that his "I can't substantiate this" type of evidence is any stronger than any other. "I know how to debate... troll, throw personal insults, beat down the strawmen, and divert!"

 

Probably just drunk again. Pay it no mind and don't bother.

[Macsen]

OK, Mr. Sneaksie, if you want a proper debate on this, let's get to it. But let me warn you that your little conspiracy will unravel faster than a mummy in a blender.

 

Nyarlathotep, he's not even in touch with reality, so it's not really worth it to get into it with him. Probably just drunk again. Pay it no mind and don't bother.

And I'm accused of ad hominem attacks?

 

Again, he demonstrates a misbelief that this is my argument, or my beliefs and claims (as opposed to a posted link)

In the 15th post of this very thread, you strongly indicated that you agreed with the conclusions drawn by the website linked by you. I quote:

 

That's the thing though - the building owner admits it, so my best figuring on it all is:

1. an executive decision to take the building down, and disguise it with the current circumstances; maybe he didn't want to pay the asbestos renovation bills, or the government or some contractor was willing to pay a nice bill to have a new building for all of those agencies, but they either didn't get to negotiate the deal yet or there was a bunch of red tape in the way - and hey, he doesn't have to tell anyone (certainly not the public) besides the local authorities, the insurance companies, and the demolitions people. There's a big payoff in it. And another bonus - if it's cleaned up as part of the rest, I assume he doesn't have to pay for that either (very expensive, probably on the order of millions).

2. it was probably told to the BBC so that they'd know how to report it when it did happen ("the building has collapsed" as opposed to "building owner Silverman decided the risk to the building integrity was great enough that they went with a controlled demolition"), but BBC people got the signals crossed and broadcast too early.

If you do not believe this theory, why did you indicate in the passage quoted above your broad agreement with its conclusions, and if this is not your argument, why are you disagreeing with me?

 

...or that something needs debating when building owners admit to acts presented (indeed, there is nothing to argue),

Show me where this guy admits to ordering this building taken down with explosives in order to collect the insurance. All he admits to is using the words "pull it" - and he has made it clear since then that this was referring to the evacuation of people located in the area. He was, at the time he said that, talking to a fire commander who is not in the demolition business.

 

Here are his words:

 

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

And here are the words of a firefighter Richard Banaciski from Ladder 22 who was in the area on that day. Note the fact that he uses the words 'pull' to refer to leaving the area:

 

They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down.

Happy now?

 

Now, regarding your argument in post 15, quoted above, that the BBC reported it 20 mins early and so were in on the conspiracy. There's a pretty glaring problem with this theory.

 

1.) Why on earth would they brief the reporters that the building was going to fall before it happened?! It wasn't like the collapse would have been ignored otherwise.

 

2.) The non-reporting of this cataclysmic event wouldn't have had any effect on the businessman's insurance. 'Sorry Mr Businessman we only pay out on buildings that collapse on the news'.

[SneaksieDave]

I can't believe you continue... continue!... to miss the main point I'm trying to make for several posts now. It's not my conspiracy. It's not my page. I have zero association to this. It's a link I saw in IRC at work, and I posted here because it was entertaining. This is off-topic, where this kind of post is permitted freely (I'm sure you know about off-topic well enough). You decided to single out the original poster as leading a crusade of some sort, and you continue to babble and froth and spew on and on about it without facing that one simple fact. Let me clarify one more time (the last time, please): I found the link interesting... entertaining... tantalizing. I believe there could be some shenanigans, sure. People often do dirty things. People also make errors at times. Is any of it proven? Duh. Is any of it disproven? Duh. But you've really go to grasp one thing through all of that: I don't really care enough about it, nor have any interest in following it. If you do, you need to find someone who cares enough. If you noticed, the only things I really had anything to say about in this thread were: 1.) a few people kept mentioning some far-reaching conspiracy, and for those who didn't read, I was trying to make clear that that's not really what this was about (to my knowledge), and 2.) when you got personal with baiting and name calling. If it's a crime to post something like this link, then I guess I'm guilty of that. But I've been trying, and am trying one more time, to clear up an obvious misconception you have about my thoughts or feelings on this. I'm not a fan of 'conspiracy' (as stated much earlier - miss that?), and I might even agree if I cared enough to want to delve deep - but I don't.

 

Please, go to the link in the first post and tell them how you feel. This might have been amusing if I wasn't a bit alarmed at why you're acting so obsessed with me, but seriously - I don't care about it the way you think I do. Sorry! If you're still confused, please re-read this post and be satisfied, finally.

[Nyarlathotep]

Reason has no place in my journalistic domain! Mwahahahaha.

 

I know how to debate, Mr Nyarlathotep, it's just that there is nothing in SneaksieDave's argument to debate.

I've dealt with so many damn idiots that couldn't recognize legitimate debate if it knocked them over their heads I have difficulties telling whether or not someone is even remotely aware of the fallacies their stepping in. Anyways, it's easy enough to avoid fallacies without sacrificing one's humor; the fact that you didn't implied that you weren't fully aware. In the strictest sense, I have no evidence to the contrary (with the exception of one post--made after my post, mind you), so you can't argue that I should have known any other than what I had seen.

 

And I'm accused of ad hominem attacks?

Well... do consider this:

 

Probably just drunk again. Pay it no mind and don't bother.

I would assume he's talking of himself.

 

Stuff.

So you CAN debate!

[Macsen]

SneaksieDave, I've seen cars go into reverse slower than you. The fact is, you did make it clear that you agreed with the conclusions that webpage came to, in post 15. I don't need to quote it again, go back and read your own words if you don't believe me. I think you're just realising now that you fell for something that is obviously rubbish.

 

If you really don't believe a word of this then the name-calling doesn't apply to you and there was no reason for you to get upset. But if you don't have any interest in this subject, why start a thread on it, then post 10 times about it in that thread?

 

P.S. Nyarlathotep this is an internet discussion, not a debating society. At least, I don't see the Bartlet-Jones Piano here.

[SneaksieDave]

Good god man, you really just can't listen can you? No matter what a person says to clarify to you what their stance actually might be something, assuming one even exists, you just close your ears and refuse to hear it, stopping one step short of going "LALALALALALA". In that case, this discussion truly is finished; I could write a sworn statement in blood, and you'd still carry on like a spoiled brat with a bug up your ass. The ladies must simply adore that in you.

 

Your next question had already been answered in the previous post. Like I suggested already in that post as well, please re-read it, so that you may go back to frolicking merry at bars and sleeping soundly at night. Or, continue your verbal masturbation forever; makes no difference really.

 

I would assume he's talking of himself.

No, I don't imbibe.

[Macsen]

No, Sneaksie, I understand your 'stance' perfectly. You started this thread thinking there there was truth in this conspiracy theory and now you don't. Therefore, my job is done. I just wish you'd stop pretending you didn't agree with the conspiracy theory and the start of this thread, because anyone can go back and see that you did.

 

I wish you did write a sworn statement in blood - maybe the loss of blood would make you calm down a bit?

 

Regarding your gross misjudgments of my character, I'm not sure where you're getting these facts from because you don't know me. I'm not a 'spoiled brat' - (I'm from a single parent family in one of the poorest areas of the UK) - and I'm not an alcoholic - (I barely drink at all by UK standards, 4 pints a week at most). But yes the ladies do adore me. Otherwise, please refrain from these libellous remarks about my character.

[Springheel]

I just wish you'd stop pretending you didn't agree with the conspiracy theory and the start of this thread, because anyone can go back and see that you did.

 

Anyway, who knows how legit it all is, but it's entertaining for sure.

 

I'm not really saying anything other than it was an amusing and tantalizing link and notion.

 

I've read the 'pre-mud-slinging' posts and it seems pretty clear to me that Sneaksie is presenting the theory for its entertainment value rather than endorsing it as factual.

 

Now, can we get back to discussing things like grown-ups?

[Macsen]

You missed this bit Spring:

 

That's the thing though - the building owner admits it, so my best figuring on it all is:

1. an executive decision to take the building down, and disguise it with the current circumstances; maybe he didn't want to pay the asbestos renovation bills, or the government or some contractor was willing to pay a nice bill to have a new building for all of those agencies, but they either didn't get to negotiate the deal yet or there was a bunch of red tape in the way - and hey, he doesn't have to tell anyone (certainly not the public) besides the local authorities, the insurance companies, and the demolitions people. There's a big payoff in it. And another bonus - if it's cleaned up as part of the rest, I assume he doesn't have to pay for that either (very expensive, probably on the order of millions).

2. it was probably told to the BBC so that they'd know how to report it when it did happen ("the building has collapsed" as opposed to "building owner Silverman decided the risk to the building integrity was great enough that they went with a controlled demolition"), but BBC people got the signals crossed and broadcast too early.

 

Anyway this discussion is getting really boring for everyone involved now, so let's stop here! Please!

[Redface]