3292 replies to this topic

[booNyzarC]

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

The idea was to wake people up as to realise something is suspicious.

Using failed logic will not ultimately support your goal.  In fact, it will have quite the opposite effect, and it runs the risk of making you look silly along the way.

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

If the Government's "truth" is exactly that, why are we still debating?

Should I try to explain this failure of logic to you again, but in a different way?

People can debate about anything.  That doesn't make the debate itself, or either side of the debate valid or correct.

I once debated with my ex-wife about which was the correct way to hang a roll of toilet paper.  The fact that she thought it should dispense toward the side opposite the toilet and I was debating that it should dispense toward the toilet doesn't legitimize either point of view.

If this were a logical observation (debating a topic lends legitimacy), it would need to follow that both sides of the debate should receive equal credence as a result; thereby negating each other.  But it isn't a logical observation in the first place, so the hypothetical point is rather moot.

Do you understand?

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

I'm suggesting something is not right because I feel that way within my heart. Thats my number one reason. I feel something is wrong and doesn't add up in my mind regarding 9/11.

Okay, and you have the right to feel that way.  Substantiating your thoughts and feelings and actually convincing other people to agree with you will require significantly more than this though.

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

Also, neither of us are perfect, remember. None of us.

My mother told me that I was a perfect little angel.  I've never forgotten that.  

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

Look, something is suspicious regarding 9/11. That much is clear.

It may be 'clear' to you, but it isn't 'clear' to me.  There are a lot of claims surrounding 9/11 conspiracy theories, but not a lot of substance to back them up.

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

It doesn't take a genius to notice.

All the same, you might want to find one who is willing and patient enough to help you understand your errors.

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

One can either turn a blind eye to the truth, or face the issue with an open mind. Your choice.

Do you have anything besides logical fallacies and long-ago debunked nonsense to substantiate your viewpoint?  Because frankly, I've grown weary of both of those.  I'm also quite tired of YouTube videos produced by and for the Truth Movement, so if you do have something of substance, please find an alternate delivery method.

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

Peace.

Cheers

[Insaniac]

booNyzarC, on 14 November 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

Using failed logic will not ultimately support your goal.  In fact, it will have quite the opposite effect, and it runs the risk of making you look silly along the way. Should I try to explain this failure of logic to you again, but in a different way?

People can debate about anything.  That doesn't make the debate itself, or either side of the debate valid or correct.

I understand now, cheers.

And I'm not wrong on everything, as you seem to imply...

Quote

I once debated with my ex-wife about which was the correct way to hang a roll of toilet paper.  The fact that she thought it should dispense toward the side opposite the toilet and I was debating that it should dispense toward the toilet doesn't legitimize either point of view.

lmao

I do this all the time with my mother. She keeps switching the loo role so that it's facing the wall, whereas I have to change it so that it's facing the toilet.

Kinda p--ses me off, actually.

Quote

Okay, and you have the right to feel that way.  Substantiating your thoughts and feelings and actually convincing other people to agree with you will require significantly more than this though.

Perhaps a poor choice of words on my end.

However, it's one thing to be convinced by people who are searching for the truth, and another thing to be convinced by somebody who works, or is associated with the Government, such as an FBI agent.

As previously explained, the Government is notorious for telling lies and being all secretive. They're not really reliable, in my opinion. Why do they do everything in secret? Is it really that hard for them to just open up and tell us the truth?

But you're right to an extent, I think.

Cheers.

Quote

My mother told me that I was a perfect little angel.  I've never forgotten that.  

I hope she ment it. Love is a great thing.

Quote

It may be 'clear' to you, but it isn't 'clear' to me.  There are a lot of claims surrounding 9/11 conspiracy theories, but not a lot of substance to back them up. All the same, you might want to find one who is willing and patient enough to help you understand your errors.

Hmm, maybe. If I can find any errors inside of myself, and no doubt there are many. If I find any errors then I agree. I'm hyperactive and short tempered (temper comes from my father's side of the family) so it's always been difficult to be patient.

Quote

Do you have anything besides logical fallacies and long-ago debunked nonsense to substantiate your viewpoint?  Because frankly, I've grown weary of both of those.  I'm also quite tired of YouTube videos produced by and for the Truth Movement, so if you do have something of substance, please find an alternate delivery method. Cheers

I haven't truly cultivated a desire to get into searching for all the facts, to be honest. So many dis-info videos and other nonsensical things that I don't know where to start. I don't remember what first made me believe 9/11 is a cover-up, although I still believe it is. I think it's that I just don't trust Bush, because of his association with the occult.

Next to that, I'm not convinced an old man with a pair of box cutters in a cave could gain access to a US airport, seize two aircraft and send them into the World Trade Center.

We are better off than Saddam was and even we couldn't pull that stunt off.

Take care and peace out.

[Czero 101]

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

I haven't truly cultivated a desire to get into searching for all the facts, to be honest. So many dis-info videos and other nonsensical things that I don't know where to start. I don't remember what first made me believe 9/11 is a cover-up, although I still believe it is. I think it's that I just don't trust Bush, because of his association with the occult.

Well, I will certainly give you points for your honesty, because this:

Quote

Next to that, I'm not convinced an old man with a pair of box cutters in a cave could gain access to a US airport, seize two aircraft and send them into the World Trade Center.

We are better off than Saddam was and even we couldn't pull that stunt off.

very clearly and conclusively shows that you have really not looked up many (or any) facts about 9/11.

Quote

Take care and peace out.

You as well...





Cz

[booNyzarC]

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

I understand now, cheers.

And I'm not wrong on everything, as you seem to imply...

Good to hear that you understand.

As for being wrong on everything, I didn't intend to imply that at all, so please accept my sincere apologies if that was the impression given.

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

lmao

I do this all the time with my mother. She keeps switching the loo role so that it's facing the wall, whereas I have to change it so that it's facing the toilet.

Kinda p--ses me off, actually.

Yes, I'm not quite sure why some prefer the roll to be oriented that way either.  Like any good husband would do, I backed off from the debate and just lived with the inconvenience for the remaining duration of our marriage, but I'm quite happy to have that roll oriented correctly now.  It's the little things in life...  

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

Perhaps a poor choice of words on my end.

However, it's one thing to be convinced by people who are searching for the truth, and another thing to be convinced by somebody who works, or is associated with the Government, such as an FBI agent.

As previously explained, the Government is notorious for telling lies and being all secretive. They're not really reliable, in my opinion. Why do they do everything in secret? Is it really that hard for them to just open up and tell us the truth?

But you're right to an extent, I think.

Cheers.

Yes, the government tells lies.  All governments do in fact.  As for why, I'm sure there are both good and bad reasons.  One of the good reasons is probably due to the need for national security.  It's an unfortunate need, but it is a need all the same.  I don't expect the government to be completely transparent in everything, and I'd be pretty disappointed in them if they actually were.  It would be irresponsible to operate with complete transparency on the current world stage.

This still doesn't lend any credence to the suggestion that the government may be lying about the events of 9/11 though.

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

I hope she ment it. Love is a great thing.

Oh she meant it at the time I'm sure.  Just like I'm certain she meant it later on when she said that she hopes I have children who act just like I did.  

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

Hmm, maybe. If I can find any errors inside of myself, and no doubt there are many. If I find any errors then I agree. I'm hyperactive and short tempered (temper comes from my father's side of the family) so it's always been difficult to be patient.

Good on you for not only recognizing this but for also sharing it.  As you said, none of us are perfect, despite my mother's early sentiments.  

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

I haven't truly cultivated a desire to get into searching for all the facts, to be honest.

Well, if you ever really want to know the Truth^TM, I'd suggest you cultivate that desire to do some fact checking.  So far it seems like you may have just watched, read, and listened to a bunch of 9/11 Truth Movement propaganda and just accepted it all without much scrutiny.  Unfortunately there are loads of bunk out there about this subject, and a great deal of it is presented in such away that it can seem convincing on the surface if you don't take the time to verify the claims being made.

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

So many dis-info videos and other nonsensical things that I don't know where to start. I don't remember what first made me believe 9/11 is a cover-up, although I still believe it is. I think it's that I just don't trust Bush, because of his association with the occult.

If it is any consolation, I don't trust Bush either.  Overall he made a mockery of the presidency if you ask me.

But that doesn't mean that he played a role in 9/11.  In all honesty, I'd say that his general incompetence points away from the likelihood that he even could have played a role in the events of that day.

As for his supposed association with the occult...  hrm...  seems pretty unlikely to me.  I've heard the claims and reviewed at least some of the 'evidence,' but I haven't seen anything that comes even close to conclusive regarding this accusation.  I'm not even sure if the guy could tell the difference between his posterior orifice and a sacrificial pit in the ground.

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

Next to that, I'm not convinced an old man with a pair of box cutters in a cave could gain access to a US airport, seize two aircraft and send them into the World Trade Center.

We are better off than Saddam was and even we couldn't pull that stunt off.

Hmm, I'm not convinced of that either.  I guess it's a good thing that what you just stated here doesn't bear even a slight resemblance to the events of 9/11 so that we can find another point of agreement.  

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

Take care and peace out.

You as well Insaniac.  Cheers.  

[Crumar]

skyeagle409, on 13 November 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

Let's take another look at what you have said in post #2404



Now, let's review statements stated by others.



Since it has been shown that the cekk phone calls were not faked and verified from other sources, would you care to clarify when you said this in post 2404?

Thank you again for proving my point and misleading people as usual.  I never made a post in #2404 that post was made by you and the fact you use #2404 twice in your post suggests either you do not know how to keep facts straight or you are purposely misleading people so they can't view the full quote and have to go dig it up themselves.  By the way the 4 and 7 key are far apart so I doubt that is a mistype either.   If you meant to say #2704 where that quote came from then yes I did make the quote and let’s take a look at the full quote and not just cherry pick it like you keep doing.

Crumar said:

Secondly I already proved to you that people were using cell phones on the flight and not air phones as stated by CNN and other news outlets.  I already explained to you why the possibility of the cell phones working on the planes were unlikely yet you still did not even read precisely what I wrote but instead cherry pick my posts to suit your own agenda.

Wow even as far back as that quote I kept insisting you are cherry picking quotes to suit your agenda and look there it is again with you not posting my full quote.  You were adamant that most calls came from airfones and not cell phones and I explained that cell phones working was unlikely because of the technical issues I discussed in regards to them getting a connection and then disconnecting I did not say they did NOT work or were not able to get a signal period.  Unlikely does not mean not working it means the cell phones will not function normally like you would find on the ground and in addition I went further on in other posts to continue to say cell phones could work but the signal would degrade and disconnect if a connection was made.  Keep on trying to discredit me it will not work with your misleading tactics.

Now let's also take a look at post #2707 right below that one.

Crumar said:

As it is a long and extensive read I urge people to read it and understand the complexity of this issue.  The FBI along with the 9/11 commission report have had problems dealing with this issue and struggled to come up with explanations as outlined by the author and they finally come to the conclusion that a lot of the phone calls were made via airphone and cell phones.

Skyeagle409 said:

You willing to correct your response that cellphones cannot be used at altitude?

http://physics911.net/projectachilles/

Crumar said:

There is nothing to correct as I have said in my other post and above that less than 2000ft a cell phone can pick up a cell tower without getting disconnected.  The higher you go the higher the signal begins to degrade and the chance of being disconnected or not connected at all increases as case study you presented showed.  Read all the links I provided for a better understanding plus the link above you posted validates what I have been saying to begin with.  No where did I say you can NOT connect at all period.  I said the conversations can last up to 1 minute depending where you are but it is so rare to connect and get a connection that usually there is a connection failure as indicated by your source.

The fact that I have to quote myself to keep proving my point to you Skyeagle is sad really.  There it is it says airphones and cell phone were made meaning calls were connected but not maintained for a long duration.  Case in point your own quote above where it clearly says:

"The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the victim's father told the FBI his son made two calls, and both times the phone cut off.  In the first call, the businessman said a stewardess had been stabbed. In the second call, the son said his plane was going down.'

Perhaps Skyeagle forgot to bold that part which would prove my point yet again.  Both times the phone cut off as would be the case when flying as other experts and I have outlined the reasons for this.  But the misleading continues to get better people because in addition to what Skyeagle posted the link he provided you does not even match the statements made that he is quoting! Where in his link posted by him: http://www.boston.co...st_words .shtml do you see the following exact quotes:

Quote

'We Have Some Planes'

At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: "I think they've taken over the cockpit-An attendant has been stabbed- and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines-Tell them it's Flight 175, Boston to LA."
At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:

'It's getting bad, Dad-A stewardess was stabbed-They seem to have knives and Mace-They said they have a bomb-It's getting very bad on the plane-Passengers are throwing up and getting sick-The plane is making jerky movements-I don't think the pilot is flying the plane-I think we are going down-I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building-Don't worry, Dad- If it happens, it'll be very fast-My God, my God.'"

"Separately, a businessman, his wife and young child aboard a United flight that left Boston and crashed into the World Trade Center twice called his father in Connecticut as his plane was being hijacked, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the victim's father told the FBI his son made two calls, and both times the phone cut off. In the first call, the businessman said a stewardess had been stabbed. In the second call, the son said his plane was going down.

The man was identified as former Easton, Conn., resident Peter Hanson. A minister confirmed the [b]cell phone call to his father, Lee Hanson, an official in Easton, a small town near Bridgeport."

http://www.boston.co...st_words .shtml

So let's review statements by others he says but then doesn't even provide the proper link to review those statements how absurd is that?  I had to do a lot of digging to come up with what he posted above and all I could come up with is people in blogs linking what he wrote above to an Associated Press report and SFGate report that no longer exists (http://www.sfgate.co...y/suspect.shtml) perhaps he can provide the actual link that he dug these quotes from.  Here is what I could come up with notice they are blogs pointing to the links I mentioned.

http://thewebfairy.c...town/chart.html Look under the Peter Hanson picture and as well you can find these quotes in another article posted here on a blog http://stevenwarran....ice-hanson.html so it does seem that these quotes were made just not where Skyeagle says they are.  I am sure I will have to repeat myself again because Skyeagle refuses to admit when he is wrong and continues to post misleading information for whatever reason as proven above.

Edited by Crumar, 14 November 2012 - 11:49 AM.

[frenat]

Crumar, on 14 November 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

  By the way the 4 and 7 key are far apart so I doubt that is a mistype either.  

unless one uses a keypad.

[Crumar]

frenat, on 14 November 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

unless one uses a keypad.

Lol thanks for pointing that out I appreciate it.

[skyeagle409]

Crumar, on 14 November 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

Thank you again for proving my point and misleading people as usual.  I never made a post in #2404 that post was made by you and the fact you use #2404 twice in your post suggests either you do not know how to keep facts straight or you are purposely misleading people so they can't view the full quote and have to go dig it up themselves.

Let's try #2704.

Quote

I already explained to you why the possibility of the cell phones working on the planes were unlikely...

And  yet, I posted confirmation from those who received the cell phone calls.

Quote

Wow even as far back as that quote I kept insisting you are cherry picking quotes to suit your agenda and look there it is again with you not posting my full quote.  You were adamant that most calls came from airfones and not cell phones and I explained that cell phones working was unlikely because of the technical issues I discussed in regards to them getting a connection and then disconnecting I did not say they did NOT work or were not able to get a signal period.

Let's take another look.

Quote

[Flight UAL 175] "At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.

Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cell (i.e it was not an air phone).

Now, what did you imply when you said; "...the possibility of the cell phones working on the planes were unlikely...?"

Quote

There is nothing to correct as I have said in my other post and above that less than 2000ft a cell phone can pick up a cell tower without getting disconnected.  The higher you go the higher the signal begins to degrade and the chance of being disconnected or not connected at all increases as case study you presented showed.  

Once again, that is besides the point because the cell phone calls were verified by those who received them.  In addition:

Quote

Calls tell of heroics on board Flight 93

Thursday, September 13, 2001
By Charles Lane and John Mintz, The Washington Post  

As United Airlines Flight 93 entered its last desperate moments in the sky, passenger Jeremy Glick used a cell phone to tell his wife, Lyzbeth, of his impending death -- and pledged to go down fighting.

Glick's cell phone call from Flight 93 and others like it provide the most dramatic accounts so far of events aboard the four hijacked aircraft during the terrifying hours of Tuesday morning, and they offer clues about how the hijackings occurred.

http://old.post-gaze...ersetnat3p3.asp

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Marion Britton, 53, Brooklyn, assistant regional director of the U.S. Census Bureau

She called longtime friend Fred Fiumano, from whom she had borrowed a cell phone. She said the plane had been hijacked, they had slit the throats of two people and the plane had made a U-turn.
Fiumano told her that the World Trade Center towers were in flames. She said, "I know, and we're going to go down." Fiumano said they were only going to take them for a ride, but she responded, "No. They're going to kill us."

Fiumano heard a lot of yelling and screaming, and the line went dead. He tried calling back but the call didn't get through.

Which brings us back as to why you said: " possibility of the cell phones working on the planes were unlikely."

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 November 2012 - 06:24 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Liquid Gardens, on 13 November 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

That's fine BR, I didn't think you'd get it anyway.  I have read and heard these conversations you deem 'unnatural and improbable', I see and hear nothing unusual about them.  I am suggesting that you not make certain negative statements out of respect for the families and the victims, unless and until you are very sure that your statements are actually correct.  Determining such vaguely defined and immeasurable things like 'unnatural and improbable' in reference to conversations isn't exactly scientific, I don't know what 'critical thinking' you could be applying to it that doesn't involve first presuming immodestly that your personal analysis is infallible.  I personally find the idea that you and whomever has done this 'analysis' know better than the victims' families whether or not they were actually talking to one of the victims to be entirely unjustified and grotesque.

There is nothing wrong with an appeal to emotion unless it is used fallaciously, which I haven't, so I don't know why you even mentioned it.  I'm not appealing to emotion anyway, I'm trying to appeal to a sense of tact and couth, not because I find the discussion upsetting or anything but because I think it reflects on you negatively.  But whatever, I wasn't really expecting any different of a response, as you were, carry on.

Well thanks for the moral guidance LG, I really appreciate it.

You think your appeal to emotion was not used fallaciously, but it was.  That, for the simple fact that all the circumstantial evidence shows the official story (which includes passengers) is a bright and shining lie.  If there were passengers on 93 and it crashed in the field, we would have seen those passengers.  Ditto the Pentagon.  The whole story is a fallacy, including that passengers died.

From the molten metal to absence of airplanes, the story is untrue.

Now I understand that some of those listed as pax might have existed, but my irreverent and non-gullible guess is that they were paid accomplices.  They might not have known all the details of what was going to happen, but they took financial compensation for their cooperation.

Do I positively know that?  Heck no.  I cannot know that.

But considering the absence of bodies to be seen, and considering the bizarre conversations offered up as evidence, it's likely they were there willingly.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 14 November 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

You think your appeal to emotion was not used fallaciously, but it was.  That, for the simple fact that all the circumstantial evidence shows the official story (which includes passengers) is a bright and shining lie.  If there were passengers on 93 and it crashed in the field, we would have seen those passengers.

But, coroner Wally Miller confirmed that human remains were recovered from the crash site of United 93.

Quote

From the molten metal...

Which was not steel.

Quote

...
to absence of airplanes, the story is untrue.

But, photos of B-757 wreckage at the crash site of United 93 and at the Pentagon, have been confirmed as from those flights, and in regard to American 77, you said the aircraft passed north of the gas station.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 November 2012 - 08:31 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Insaniac, on 14 November 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

The idea was to wake people up as to realise something is suspicious. If the Government's "truth" is exactly that, why are we still debating?

I'm suggesting something is not right because I feel that way within my heart. Thats my number one reason. I feel something is wrong and doesn't add up in my mind regarding 9/11.

Also, neither of us are perfect, remember. None of us.




Look, something is suspicious regarding 9/11. That much is clear.

It doesn't take a genius to notice.

One can either turn a blind eye to the truth, or face the issue with an open mind. Your choice.


Peace.

I think more people than you realize know that something is amiss.  Numerous polls show that.

The dynamic is that it is so unpleasant to contemplate that MOST people simply prefer not to discuss it.  In person, the body language is quite strong when the topic is brought up.  I know dozens of people like that.

In private, one-on-one, most folks will talk about it, but if in a public space, most wince and walk away.

It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of psychological defense mechanisms, IMO.  Some folks can overcome those mechanisms, some cannot.

The beat goes on....

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 14 November 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

I think more people than you realize know that something is amiss.  Numerous polls show that.

The majority in those polls blame al-Qaeda, not the United States, for the 9/11 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 November 2012 - 08:28 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

The questions in the polls were all a little bit different Sky, but had nothing about AQ.

The general theme of the questions is something to the effect of "Is the government hiding something regarding the events of 11 September?"  Nothing about AQ.

At least the polls I was talking about.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 14 November 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

The questions in the polls were all a little bit different Sky, but had nothing about AQ.
The general theme of the questions is something to the effect of "Is the government hiding something regarding the events of 11 September?"  Nothing about AQ.

At least the polls I was talking about.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 November 2012 - 09:27 PM.

[Liquid Gardens]

Babe Ruth, on 14 November 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

Well thanks for the moral guidance LG, I really appreciate it.

You're welcome.

Quote

You think your appeal to emotion was not used fallaciously, but it was.  That, for the simple fact that all the circumstantial evidence shows the official story (which includes passengers) is a bright and shining lie.  If there were passengers on 93 and it crashed in the field, we would have seen those passengers.  Ditto the Pentagon.  The whole story is a fallacy, including that passengers died.

From the molten metal to absence of airplanes, the story is untrue.

Now I understand that some of those listed as pax might have existed, but my irreverent and non-gullible guess is that they were paid accomplices.  They might not have known all the details of what was going to happen, but they took financial compensation for their cooperation.

Do I positively know that?  Heck no.  I cannot know that.

If you think it was fallacious then you misunderstand me.  Not all appeals to emotion are fallacious unless you think there's something logically wrong with marriage proposals.   Here's an instructive quote from 'fallacyfiles.org' concerning appeals to emotion:  "So, one distinction between relevant and fallacious appeals to emotion is based on the distinction between arguments which aim to motivate us to action, and those which are intended to convince us to believe something. Appeals to emotion are always fallacious when intended to influence our beliefs, but they are sometimes reasonable when they aim to motivate us to act. The fact that we desire something to be true gives not the slightest reason to believe it".  I have made no appeal to emotion that I'm aware of to try to convince you that you are incorrect about 'hijackers and boxcutters' and staged phone calls; I've already stated previously the reasons why those arguments are terribly reasoned and insufficiently evidenced.  I didn't try to convince you that you are wrong on those two points because it's potentially offensive to the victims and their loved ones, that would be fallacious. I suggested to you that maybe there are some potentially sensitive topics concerning 9/11 that might require a higher level of certainty prior to stating it as a conclusion and might not be the kind of things to just shoot the breeze about.  I don't think anyone thinks that there are sensitivities to discussing things that are probably not really well supported in general, such as the use of energy weapons to bring down the towers, that implies nothing about the victims.  Things like the two points above and others like 'the passengers are alive in Witness Protection and the family knows it" do say something negative and offensive about the victims and I think all your ducks should be in a row before making those suggestions.  I don't know who's reading this forum, I could have sworn I had read a poster who knew someone who died in WTC, not positive if it was here, and I know I'd feel stupid if challenged on statements that legitimately offend them by trying to justify it with a feeble, 'Do I positively know that? Heck no.'.  That's something I'd want to be positive about before opening my mouth.  If nothing else, I'll just note also that the last time I saw Betty Ong and the staged calls discussed, the moderators had to bring out the snipping shears (which may well have been my fault).

But that's where I was coming from, might have just been my mood at the time I probably wouldn't even bring it up if it were posted today, even though I don't really think it's cool without having a very strong case.  Not my forum, and I don't think you should be edited or anything and it doesn't cause me any distress, I just think it can be viewed as being in bad taste; to each his own.  I think I mainly reacted that way because I haven't kept up on your postings and I was disappointed to see those two points indiscriminately added to your 'the only thing I know is that the official story is a lie' boilerplate post that seems to be on an eternal carousel here.  But again it's not my forum, I'm wrong to even be implying that you shouldn't talk about or say whatever you want and for that I apologize, so have at it, knock yourself out.