Merged: Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

I've never heard of anyone being UNconvinced that the 9/11 collapses were not some kind of controlled demolitions.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130827

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

I've never heard of anyone being UNconvinced that the 9/11 collapses were not some kind of controlled demolitions.

Apparently, you don't get out much.

[CompusMentus]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

I've never heard of anyone being UNconvinced that the 9/11 collapses were not some kind of controlled demolitions.

Can somebody unwrap the double negatives for me in this sentence? I'm sure the words don't mean what Clayton M. thinks they do.

"Unconvinced they were not" = "convinced they were". Doesn't it?

My brain feels a bit fuzzy tonight. Serves me right, I suppose, for spending an hour stundie-hunting in the David Icke looney-bin.


Compus

[Travis]

Originally Posted by sylvan8798

Please explain what they would learn from reassembling a plane which was flown into the ground on purpose?

And even if they did want to reassemble it they rarely can with planes that suffered a controlled flight into the ground.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by tempesta29

Yet it's debunkers who post most of the threads in the section. Go figure.

That's because, as this thread demonstrates, we actually have things to talk about. You do not. Or, at least, after almost six weeks you've been unable to come up with anything.

Originally Posted by tempesta29

And yes, I have convinced people, or at least, I showed them the evidence and they convinced themselves. You are far more stubborn, however. You're in too deep methinks. Even if you realized you were wrong, you'd never admit it.

Not likely. I pay far more attention to Truthers than they deserve, and have for five years -- yet I remain unaware of even a single individual who knew much about 9/11 that was convinced to join the Truthers. On the other hand, the Forum is filled with histories of those who wised up and learned better.

You have nothing.

The best your side can do is to change one flavor of insanity for another. Unless, like Dr. Steven Jones, you believe in earthquake machines and free energy devices.

The clock is still ticking. Time is starting to run short.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

The more appropriate question is if they are from 93.

I almost pity you, RedIbis. I really do. To live in your world where everything you see may be fake? That's rough.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by CompusMentus

Can somebody unwrap the double negatives for me in this sentence? I'm sure the words don't mean what Clayton M. thinks they do.

"Unconvinced they were not" = "convinced they were". Doesn't it? ...

Sorry but no!

It is convoluted but the the two negatives are about different things so it is not a straight double negative.

"Unconvinced" in the context CM uses it means "ceasing to be convinced" - that is ceasing to be convinced about the subject which follows. Ceasing to be convinced only means a loss of conviction - it does not mean adopting the opposite viewpoint. You go from believer to agnostic.

The subject is "not some kind of CD"

So the sentence means ceasing to believe that it was "not CD". Therefore coming to hold no conviction that it was "notCD"




I think.

Whether that is what CM meant is anyone's guess.

[Oz1976]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

That is ridiculous. I'm sure your mates will agree.

No, it's not ridiculous, it's a known structural engineering fact. Why the heck do you think they FIREPROOF the steel? Seriously, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[ref]

Originally Posted by tempesta29

Pretty laughable stuff. "Truthers" are made up predominantly of people who once believed the official story. I know I did. So I don't know what you're babbling on about.

You didn't get the point. Ryan was unaware of people, who knew much about 9/11 and joined the truthers.

I believed the official story, but I didn't know much about the details. Then I heard about the details from truther sources, and for a short while became a truther. Even then I didn't know much about 9/11, eventhough I thought I did. When I learned more about the details and studied, the more alienated from trutherism I became. That was when I was beginning to know much more about 9/11, and learned that those who were truthers thought they knew much but they didn't. That's exactly the problem, truthers or whatever you call them think they know everything, but they don't. That prevents them from becoming anything else but truthers. Once they realize they actually don't know much, they have a chance of actually learning.

I know probably you won't listen, since you pretty much seem to be like an average "I know it all, you else are stupidly wrong" kind of guy. But anyway, you are wrong. If you are interested in not fooling yourself, but actually living the real truth and learning, then stop for a moment.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by tempesta29

Things to talk about regarding 9/11 truth? Why? You've got it all wrapped up right? Surely you have better things to talk about...

Pretty much, yes, we do.

People argue with you because you irritate them. Not because there's a snowball's chance in nanothermite that you could be right. As your inability to articulate any new insight proves.

Originally Posted by tempesta29

Pretty laughable stuff. "Truthers" are made up predominantly of people who once believed the official story. I know I did. So I don't know what you're babbling on about.

You don't even know what "the official story" is. For instance:

Originally Posted by tempesta29

Like has been repeated ad nauseam: industrial steel will always provide some amount of resistance against collapse. Much of the steel in WTC 7 did not. You can't surmount this. You can talk a bunch of trash, but nothing you say will circumvent this fact.

This "argument" of yours has no bearing on "the official story." You only think it does because you don't understand it. But then, that's why you're a Truther.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

All you're doing is making assumptions. You don't know what I've researched or who I've contacted. I wouldn't assume my comments in this forum represent the totality of my involvement with 9/11 research.

So, not satisfied with trying to expose the real story behind 9/11 by concealing your hypothesis, you're planning to blow the whole thing wide open by concealing the findings of your research too?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

If there's a thread or a debate devoted entirely to objective research and civil discussion, you'd probably not find me anywhere else.

Would we find you civilly accusing Silverstein of making out like a bandit, and objectively refusing to research the numbers that might back up the accusation?

Dave

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by sylvan8798

Please explain what they would learn from reassembling a plane which was flown into the ground on purpose?

If it had crashed into the ground on purpose there would have been debris cluttering up those pictures.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by tempesta29

Pretty laughable stuff. "Truthers" are made up predominantly of people who once believed the official story. I know I did. So I don't know what you're babbling on about.

Let me clarify a little.

There are three stages of understanding of 9/11. Stage 1 is uncritical acceptance of the generally agreed narrative, and most people will simply stay at stage 1 and get on with their lives. Stage 2, which may be bypassed, is a belief, based on the deliberately deceptive arguments of truthers coupled with a lack of understanding of any of a wide range of fields of knowledge, that 9/11 was an inside job. Stage 3 is an informed understanding that the half-formed and self-contradictory theories of truthers are utterly untenable, that all the evidence converges on the generally agreed narrative, and that this is in fact why it's so generally accepted.

Progression through these stages is always in the order stated. The only variations are in which stages are skipped, and where the progression stops. I have yet to encounter anyone who has progressed from stage 3 to stage 2; trutherdom only grows in the soil of ignorance, and knowledge is a very effective weed killer.

Originally Posted by tempesta29

Like has been repeated ad nauseam: industrial steel will always provide some amount of resistance against collapse. Much of the steel in WTC 7 did not. You can't surmount this. You can talk a bunch of trash, but nothing you say will circumvent this fact.

Repeating an absurdity ad nauseam doesn't make it any less absurd. Industrial steel will, very obviously, only resist collapse if it's in the collapse path. Buckling displaces steel from the collapse path, so it can no longer offer resistance. So all you're doing is compounding your ignorance by proclaiming your refusal to learn the obvious.

Dave

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Originally Posted by Oystein

What do you plan to do to find an answer to that question?

See my comments above.

Let's see...

Originally Posted by RedIbis

All you're doing is making assumptions. You don't know what I've researched or who I've contacted. I wouldn't assume my comments in this forum represent the totality of my involvement with 9/11 research.

As for debate, feel free to present a legitimate debate topic, get it moderated and I'm all in.

This? This says "I am not telling, nyah nyah nyah nyaaaaah". Pretty childish.
No report of anything means nothing we can assume. So the reasonable assumption is that this means you plan to do nothing.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

If it had crashed into the ground on purpose there would have been debris cluttering up those pictures.

Do you know what an argument from simple incredulity means? Exactly what are your crash site qualifications again?

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

That is ridiculous. I'm sure your mates will agree.

Errrmmm...What an odd thing for you to believe.

Absolutely no person on this forum with the slightest knowledge of fire science or experience in cleaning up the debris of a fire doubts for a second that a steel structure will collapse far sooner than a wooden one, or that steel loses structural integrity in a fire. Every fire fighter on this page who has an IQ above 100 agrees utterly with Beachnut on this.

Why would you think otherwise?

[NoahFence]

C7 - what's your alternate theory? If you find NIST to be so utterly wrong, surely you've got a better explanation?


WHAT IS IT

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Isn't it kinda standard procedure to reassemble a commercial aircraft to determine the cause of a crash?

No.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

If it had crashed into the ground on purpose there would have been debris cluttering up those pictures.

No. The debris would have been thrown into the woods down-range. There you will see bits and pieces of it scattered widely. Most of the aircraft was buried in the ground. Do try to keep up.

[Oystein]

Since C7 ignoired my last post, allow me to repeat the question:

Originally Posted by Christopher7

As far as NIST is concerned, that is the final theory.

Do you have an official and current NIST statement, issued after other researchers offered their additional thoughts, that this is so? Does NIST state that the theory as per the final report is unchangeable and perpetual truth, engraved in stone, gospel? That would be quite foolish.

If no such statement exists, then your claim is foolish.

[TruthersLie]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

I don't see a plane.

OMG...

if a plane crashes and you don't see a plane, it must have been inside jobby job...


look up psa 1771.

nuff said.

[TruthersLie]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

That is ridiculous. I'm sure your mates will agree.

Yup...

Your ignorance and incredulity are a major handicap... do some freaking BASIC research.

P.s. why do they require fireproofing on structural steel? You might want to look that up.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

So, not satisfied with trying to expose the real story behind 9/11 by concealing your hypothesis, you're planning to blow the whole thing wide open by concealing the findings of your research too?

Dave

He's blowing the silent whistle and beating the quiet drum, soon the hordes invisible will come.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

I'm not so sure about that Ryan. I think Kevin Ryan might have made or used a sample of nanos but I'm not sure. As for them planting thermites in the dust, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Knowing them personally, I am not at all convinced that they would do this... I wouldn't 100% vouch for them but I've seen no evidence of Gage's group planting false evidence. And there may be ways for that to be discovered if they did. For example, RJ Lee may well still have some dust samples of their own from 2003, and NIST or someone may have samples. At the least I would push hard for giving them enough of the benefit of the doubt to support another test. If thermites come out, I would push to look for an independent study of another dust sample with a completely different chain of custody. If that tests positive too we'll all owe our favorite Truth activist a drink!

But... again... one baby step at a time here...

I have asked that they submit a dust sample for independent testing and one guy from AE911 said he'll look into it. That's all so far. Probably premature for me to even mention it.

I suspect the Devil will be wearing long underwear before you see those samples.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

C7 - what's your alternate theory? If you find NIST to be so utterly wrong, surely you've got a better explanation?


WHAT IS IT

Yes C7,what is your theory? Java Man and CE both have theories that have to remain a secret,for reasons that they won't divulge. Do you have one and does it have to remain a secret too?

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by NutCracker

Has CM come up with something new?

New comedy material,yes. New evidence or something approaching an alternative theory,no.

[Mr. Skinny]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Well, I've always found you civil and friendly and you've even made me laugh at what must be frustrating about my approach. Still, when asked a direct, specific question, rather than disingenuous hypotheticals, I have tried to answer as sincerely as possible. If you ask me vaguely, "what do you think happened?" The only honest answer is "I don't know." I don't know what happened in Shanksville, but the initial claim is still under enormous scrutiny with the obligation to provide evidence. If this obligation isn't met reasonably, just because no alternative theory is presented does not make it correct.

Interesting. If your answer is “I don’t know”, then you surely must have specific unanswered questions that led to your doubt of the results of the investigation of the Shanksville crash. Perhaps your suggested moderated thread could be a list of these questions.

I disagree with you that the investigation is “still under enormous scrutiny”. I’m not really aware of anyone outside the truth movement that seriously questions the results of the investigation. The FDR from the aircraft was recovered, so we know pretty precisely how and where the aircraft went down. We have the recovered aircraft parts, DNA from passengers, phone calls from passengers describing what was happening pre-crash, etc. As someone who has done many mishap investigations, this one would seem to be a fairly easy one to find the root cause(s).

Quote:

I agree with your picks for topics. I agree that the wheat has to be separated from the chaff, but you must notice that for every wacky space beam theory, there are literally hundreds of posts choosing to focus on such topics and avoiding some of the ones you've mentioned. With that, this sub-forum is absolutely flooded with rancor and worthless topics about Twoofers, and other such nonsense (although with some recent housecleaning I bet that will be cut down some).

No argument here. Unfortunately, there is a need to debunk the wacky space beam theories right alongside the more serious discussions. Bad science needs to be challenged wherever and whenever it crops up.

Like you, I dislike the rancorous and worthless topics about Twoofers for the most part. I generally don’t participate in those threads. In fact, I don’t often participate in the “good” threads unless I feel I have something to add that goes to my experience, education, or training.

I suppose I should chastise my fellow debunkers for starting such threads, but I can’t post to the forum while I’m working, so they’ve usually taken on a life of their own by the time I can comment. In the same vein, I think it would be great if you occasionally chastised some of the truthers for some of their silly, trollish behavior. I suppose no matter which side of the fence you’re on, sometimes the most you can do is sigh and shake your head in disgust.

Quote:

If there's a thread or a debate devoted entirely to objective research and civil discussion, you'd probably not find me anywhere else. I imagine you'd appreciate that as well. There are a few, on both sides who would enjoy a mature, friendly environment to research what might be the most compelling and complicated historical event in history without it always descending into a childish pissing match.

Couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, posters on both sides of the debate can easily slip into immature, unfriendly conduct. I’m not sure how to combat that. Even a moderated thread has to allow posts that are on topic and don’t violate the forum rules, regardless of how unfriendly they appear.

I still suggest that you start your own moderated thread to discuss what you feel are the questionable or unaddressed issues regarding the Shanksville crash. However, you really need to engage when asked legitimate questions rather that avoiding, obfuscating, or shifting goal posts.

You’re apparently one of the better educated folks who have questions about 9/11. You are a fine writer with excellent skills as manifested by your sentence formation, spelling, punctuation, etc. If you can apply the same skills to your thinking processes, and actually take a debate to its conclusion, your moderated thread should be successful.

Good luck with your thread. I’ll participate (if I have something worthwhile to add), and I promise to so in a mature, friendly way.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

If it had crashed into the ground on purpose there would have been debris cluttering up those pictures.

There are none so blind as those who will not see

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...debris21sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...3debris8sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...debris18sm.jpg
Thousands of aircraft parts
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...debris22sm.jpg
buried engine
You have delusions, and you can't see.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

If it had crashed into the ground on purpose there would have been debris cluttering up those pictures.

Um no. That happens when planes crash at low speed and at oblique angles. Are you aware that there are huge chunks of crashed airliners still buried at some of their crash sites?

[sylvan8798]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

If it had crashed into the ground on purpose there would have been debris cluttering up those pictures.

Just what is your working theory in regard to Flight 93, CM? There are several out there, as it were:

1) There was no plane. Just a hole in the ground with some stuffs thrown around.

2) Plane was shot down by Army/Air force/Illuminati, etc.

3) Plane was flown somewhere else, passengers were dumped in Atlantic. Load of junk was dumped in Shanksville.

4) Plane landed in Ohio. Passengers are living in witness protection programs. Shanksville? Where's that?

5) Other ridiculous idea __________________.

[tempesta29]

So, how many people did you guys figure would have had to be involved again? And that's scientific right?

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by tempesta29

So, how many people did you guys figure would have had to be involved again? And that's scientific right?

If you're going to invoke LIHOP you need to actually ensure that the source you're making a reference from as a whistle blower actually supports the same idea. Beyond this article talking about a matter of government incompetence I fail to see the significance that either you or redibis sees in it.

[TheRedWorm]

So look up bare assertion fallacy.

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by tempesta29

So, how many people did you guys figure would have had to be involved again? And that's scientific right?

16,796.

Plus three hamsters and a goat. And if you need that explained to you then you clearly don't understand physics.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by tempesta29

So, how many people did you guys figure would have had to be involved again? And that's scientific right?

small knives, box cutters 5 dollars
room and board 850 dollars
flight lessons for 4 or more 25,000 dollars
19 idiots who want to die for god
priceless
for everything else, Master Card

[tempesta29]

Originally Posted by beachnut

small knives, box cutters 5 dollars
room and board 850 dollars
flight lessons for 4 or more 25,000 dollars
19 idiots who want to die for god
priceless
for everything else, Master Card

You'd think after you edited it that it would at least be clever.

You'd think that...

[tempesta29]

So no answer then. How many people would it take and how did you achieve this figure?

[tempesta29]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

I think truthers spend too much time trying to explain why it shouldn't have looked the way it did, and zero time trying to explain how they feel it should have looked.

What is "it" exactly? Think about the fallacy in your question.

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by tempesta29

So no answer then. How many people would it take and how did you achieve this figure?

If you have such an interest in explaining why 19 islamic fanatics with nothing on their minds but 72 virgins in death, divided into 4 groups hijacking 4 planes can't have done the attacks then make the thread. This is about whistle blowers; something you appear curiously reluctant to address.