[emailking]

What exactly is it that you think they are covering up rwwfff?

[mmasters]

I see your argument but it's also assuming the CTs carry enough weight (in some respect) that the government needs to bother initiating an agenda to discredit them.

In that case what would be the merit for discrediting CTs? Is it a general attack on their credibility to draw attention away from anything they might say?

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR', '.')..there is a lot to hide, just not what you guys are looking for.

[AgentR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', 'W')hat exactly is it that you think they are covering up rwwfff?

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR', '.')..A [s]secondary[/s] quaternary bet is that someone knew it was coming, attempted to [s]stop[/s] facilitate it without causing too much suspicion...

[AgentR]

I would like to point out to those who may misinterpret Zardoz's above note, I did not write that.

His point being that LIHOP/MIHOP are only a small edit away from my own opinion about a longshot possibility; and it is an assertion that I strongly disagree with.

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR', 'I') would like to point out to those who may misinterpret Zardoz's above note, I did not write that.

His point being that LIHOP/MIHOP are only a small edit away from my own opinion about a longshot possibility; and it is an assertion that I strongly disagree with.

[PolestaR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', 'R')ight, and I'm sure everybody understands that and gets my little joke.

Like I've said before, MIHOP is impossible on the face of it, for a host of reasons.

LIHOP is a whole 'nother thing. Way too many weird things happened on that awful day, and they all fall into place according to the LIHOP theory.

[PolestaR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gideon', 'A')gent R, of all of your posts that I have read on this board, your 9-11 posts are the only ones that I think are unreasonable. Your other posts are well thought out, insightful, and well based.

[Carlhole]

I don't know why people are not outraged about a little dribble of evidence here, a little dribble of evidence there... when this could have been released to the public immediately.

If the government had in its possession a video from the Doubletree showing a Boeing smashing into the Pentagon, why only release 5 inconclusive frames of parking lot surveillance as it did?

Why do they continue to withhold wreckage and other evidence if they are releasing the Doubletree evidence?

Because the government is playing games with us.

If the government had nothing to hide, and it was strongly making the case that America needed to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to combat Islamic Terrorists, why didn't it say the the public, "As your government, we want there to be no misunderstandings about the attacks of September 11th so we are making the evidence available to indepenedent investigators so that everyone's questions and concerns can be addressed right away".

But that is not the kind of government we have, folks. We have a government that is more like the former Soviet Union when it comes to secrecy, propaganda and manipulation.

What's more infuriating is that the MEDIA should have taken a lead on this long ago. They will report on the mystery of the "Missing Tickle-Me Elmos" but they won't report on the anything to do with 911 skepticism.

I don't like to the country's vital organs break down like this.

I guess I just must be unpatriotic.

[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gideon', '
') What, you believe the "Big Bang"? And what's the evidence for that? Nothing.

And what was here before the Big Bang? Nothing?

It's just silly. It's science's way of saying, "yeah, we don't know how it all started, so, "BANG" there it is."

[PolestaR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gideon', 'I') can't recall any AgentR religious quotes, but I'll say, generically, that I don't believe a strong belief in God and a hard core rational scientific, existentialist basis for living are incompatible or even antagonistic.

[JustinFrankl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', 'L')ike I've said before, MIHOP is impossible on the face of it, for a host of reasons.

[dukey]

people seem to forget
the pentagon is covered in security cameras
if the government wanted to squash conspiracy theories all they would have to do is release any of them

after all what do they have to hide ?

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gideon', 'T')here was nothing, then, BANG, there was something.

[NEOPO]

Mihop all the way.

Would someone like to show me the vast body of evidence that debunks MIHOP?

Please?

[emailking]

"There was nothing, then, BANG, there was something."

No. You're still not getting it. The beginning is 10^-43 s. This is as far back as you can go such that the concept of time makes any sense whatsoever. So no, there isn't "nothing" proceeding to "bang" and then "something." All you have is "something" at 10^-43 seconds. Time has no meaning at smaller times or at negative times. There's no such thing. Quantum mechanics ensures that we enter this frothy realm of mystery.

"Wow. And you don't consider that to be based on faith alone?"

No. I consider it to be the product of years of studying physics that you haven't done.

"What, you do some EMR and atom ratios and then suddenly something that is alleged to have happened, what, 8 billion years ago is suddenly clear?"

Your oversimplification of the analysis of elemental ratios in the universe does not serve your point. If you have a theory that predicts something (like elemental ratios) and then it predicts something else (like 2.73K microwave background radiation) and then it predicts more and more things that are true, and other theories can't do this, it starts to become clear that the theory is correct.

"OK, emailking, your entire Big Bang religion rests on the premise that there was absolutely nothing, and then, BANG, there was everything!"

No, it does not. See above.

"What caused the big bang to occur?"

I don't have an answer. No physicist does. This is where we enter the realm of complete speculation. Our lack of an answer does not not negate the fact that the big bang occurred and the evidence for this is overwhleming.

Look, the universe is as it is. What do you want us to do? Should we say "Well it really, really, really looks like time, space, matter, and energy were all created at a point of infinite density 13.7 billions years ago, but we don't know what caused this so we're not going to put our faith in the Big Bang."

"You have no answer to this. You Big Bang Zealots can't explain why everything came from nothing, so you wave your hands around and point to EMR levels and hydrogen ratios, all the while understanding that your theory requires the giant leap of faith that . . . "

Again, you miss the point. We're *just* saying that it happened. Not why it happened. Not what it means for you or your spirituality. *Just* that it happened.

"It happened because it happened"

That's actual my particular theory (I think the universe created itself through time travel). But I have no evidence for this. I'm probably wrong too.

"No chain of events. No causation. Just, "well, it just did, and, cuz we said so.""

We're not addressing the cause. At least not officialy. It's all speculation and pissing in the wind. No one has a solid answer why the big bang happened.

"You take it on faith, and faith alone, that the Big Bang occurred, because you can't explain why it occurred."

That is absolutely false. Scientists never believe something to be true because they can't explain why it occurred. That's just absurd.

"You believe that you can provide evidence that it did occur, of course, but I won't debate that. I want the evidence that you don't have as to why it occurred."

It's irrelevant. No one has your evidence. No one is claiming to have any or even putting up a theory with any degree of confidence. All I'm saying is the Big Bang happened, you have misunderstandings about the nature of time, and you're all over my case for it because I can't provide you with an explanation for why there's something other than nothing.

"I can tell you why evolution occurs. I can tell you why depletion of finite resources occurs. I can tell you why the nerves in your retinal cells run out toward your vitreous humor and then through your blind spot, rather than out through the back of your eye, as they oughtta. But you can't explain why your Bang happened - you take it 100% on faith."

Even for those you mention, I could ask you questions that break it down more and more till you no longer have an explanation.

"So, when you tell me that I am irrational for not finding religious faith incompatible with scientific, observation-based reason,"

I never said that.

"I point out to you that your belief in the occurance of the Big Bang, without an explanation as to "why", is the same blind faith upon which you cast your derision."

I do not have an answer to the question "why." I think about it as much as you do I'm sure.

"Folks, read it twice - it's that good."

I believe you misunderstood not only what I was saying but what every scientist says about the Big Bang. Most scientists believe God is the ultimate cause. That's just true. Most physicists when you ask about the Big Bang will say that's in the realm of religion. It's only in the last 20 years or so that people have tried to go further than this...eg. bubble universes, no beginning through time travel, etc.

[AgentR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gideon', 'T')here was nothing, then, BANG, there was something.

[AgentR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gideon', 'I') think you are at the point now where if some evidence did pop up that was credible and very compelling, you'd argue against it simply because it favored the other position.

[emailking]

"OK emailking, let me see.

One of your points is that I just don't get "the physics" of it, and you do.

Ok. Let's keep that as a premise.

You, the physicist, propose that, what was that now, the Big Bang happened because of Time Travel?


Bwahhhahhahhahhahh! Laughing"

It's a serious position. J. Richard Gott first proposed it. When you've sat through 2 years of general relativity and still want to laugh, we'll talk. Otherwise, you have no credibility in this realm.

"Exactly my point. You might choose the words "complete speculation", but wise men will see those words as a euphemism for "faith.""

No sir, it is not faith. Faith is belief without evidence. But I don't believe anything before 10^-43 seconds! Why is this so hard to understand? I'm not making up an explanation like God or a bubble universe and sticking with it. I'm just saying I don't know.

"To reiterate my thesis, you can't explain why the Big Bang occurred as opposed to not occur."

Yes. And will you now finally admit that it did, in fact, occur?

"The explanation that "God created everything" works exactly as well as your explanation, which you described as "complete speculation.""

Not really. "God created everything" is an explanation. I have no explanation. Because I have no idea.



"The Mullah says "God Created Everything" and you say "The Big Bang created everything.""

Ok, the Big Bang did create everything and this we have evidence for. We see that it happened. You're trying to shift the uncertainty to a realm where we're already certain. We know the Big Bang happened. It's just true, whether you like it or not.

"Two religions, both based entirely on faith."

Faith: Belief without evidence.
Science: Belief with evidence through the scientific method.

Quite a difference.