911 inside job - for what?

[psyche101]

His only 'argument' is an appeal to authority, nothing more.

He has an argument Babe Ruth, something you seem to be sorely lacking? Still have not seen you post a link or one piece of supporting informan yet. All I have seen you do is perch on a soapbox and insist everyone believes you. As such, it seems terribly hypocritical of you to bag Sky when you are not even providing half the effort he is, all you seem to have is hot air?

[Professor Buzzkill]

What, like this?

and this?

They ara at Hangar 17 at John F Kennedy Airport, why?

Because it was weakened from the top down and pancaked increasing the destructive force with each meter that fell. Not to mention the mass of a plane as well. The floors were not built to take that much.

Do you read my posts? Fires that collapse steel framed buildings cause those building to deform (bulge and sag) massively before finally collapsing in the direction of least resistance.

What evidence of large bulges in the building have you shown prior to collapse? None.

Why would a building that has suffered lopsided fire and impact damage fall through a basically undamaged 75 story steel spider web, instead of meeting some resistance and rolling towards an area with no resistance? I know why. Because all the steel supports collapsed at the same time. Remarkable.

[Babe Ruth]

He has an argument Babe Ruth, something you seem to be sorely lacking? Still have not seen you post a link or one piece of supporting informan yet. All I have seen you do is perch on a soapbox and insist everyone believes you. As such, it seems terribly hypocritical of you to bag Sky when you are not even providing half the effort he is, all you seem to have is hot air?

I understand you are favorably impressed by Sky's pictures and such. Regurgitating government talking points a sufficient number of times constitutes "argument" for you. Not for me.

Once bitten, twice shy, Sky has already tricked me here once.

Point is, links and pictures can be false, inaccurate, untrue, and misleading. Yet for you, it seems, they are crucial to discussing a subject.

I'm curious if you are able to discuss a subject WITHOUT using links and such. Are you able to discuss ideas and analysis without a link to something? You know, like humans used to do before there was an internet?

[skyeagle409]

What evidence of large bulges in the building have you shown prior to collapse? None.

Look what you have missed.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse

of the World Trade Center Buildings

Disprove Explosives Theory

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)

Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse." -Latest Findings From NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released

"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towersopposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

"Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tiltedas it came crashing down."

"The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns."

Key findings include:

• Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
  
• Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.
  
• The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.
  

Read more here: Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says (Update2)

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall.

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

WTC 7

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors.

It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

WTC Buckling

The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)

Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse."

Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

Before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. As already mentioned, flying around outside the WTC, the NYPD helicopters reported "an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed." Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."

Callan's warnings about the north tower, WTC 1, reached the Office of Emergency Management, OEM. Other people learned from OEM that the WTC buildings were going to collapse. EMT Richard Zarrillo was told to deliver the message. In an Oct 25, 2001 interview Zarrillo explianed, "I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out. ... I said, listen, I was just at OEM. The message I was given was that the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down and that's when the building came down, the first tower came down." 9110161.PDF http://nistreview.org/histories.php

At 9:37, a civilian on the 106th floor of the South Tower reported to a 911 operator that a lower floor-the "90-something floor"-was collapsing. - "The 9/11 Commission Report" p304

http://www.represent...xplosives2.html

Diagram 1—Typical WTC 7 floor showing locations of columns (numbered). The buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 79 and 44, and cascading floor failures. (Credit: NIST)

Edited May 6, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Once bitten, twice shy, Sky has already tricked me here once.

How many times have you tried to bite us with false tales. which others have pointed out to you as well?

[psyche101]

Do you read my posts? Fires that collapse steel framed buildings cause those building to deform (bulge and sag) massively before finally collapsing in the direction of least resistance.

Hi PB

Yes, yes I do. Do you read your own posts? You did not say "building" you said "steel"

Professor Buzzkill, on 03 May 2013 - 09:06 PM, said:

Where are the large deformations you would expect to see in a fire hot enough to heat the steel that much?

See?

Is this what you are after?

What evidence of large bulges in the building have you shown prior to collapse? None.

See above.

Why would a building that has suffered lopsided fire and impact damage fall through a basically undamaged 75 story steel spider web, instead of meeting some resistance and rolling towards an area with no resistance? I know why. Because all the steel supports collapsed at the same time. Remarkable.

Because the failure began at the top.

You can see it quite clearly in this clip. Parts of the external structure remain, and collapse in on the bulk of the mass which is taking the path of least resistance according to gravity. The floors below did not hold up under the kinetic force of the collapsing upper levels.

[psyche101]

I understand you are favorably impressed by Sky's pictures and such. Regurgitating government talking points a sufficient number of times constitutes "argument" for you. Not for me.

Pictures are not Government anything, they represent the damage that was strewn at each location. But I can see why you would prefer to avoid them as they do put a major hole in your argument.

Once bitten, twice shy, Sky has already tricked me here once.

And he came clean you told me. What do you have against a person who when asked has proven to be truthful?

Point is, links and pictures can be false, inaccurate, untrue, and misleading. Yet for you, it seems, they are crucial to discussing a subject.

I would like to see you rebut them, as seen here, you state no objection other than the fact that you do not want them around, or in any conversation. It sounds more like you fear them Babe Ruth, if you had an argument, you would just present it.

They are crucial to any point the presenter offers them for. How is that not valid application? That you are unable to offer a counter debate in no way dimisses them.

I'm curious if you are able to discuss a subject WITHOUT using links and such. Are you able to discuss ideas and analysis without a link to something? You know, like humans used to do before there was an internet?

You mean like when I said just looking at this, we have planes in buildings, a fundi religious group of maniacs that rejoiced the murder, people of the religion from all parts of the globe condoning the slaughter and confessions? That is a personal view that is hard to dismiss. When you have someone saying Yes I killed those people, and I am glad about it, and I would do it again, and this it is Gods will, it's easy to see what the motivation really was. "Truthers" are just a joke with too much time on their hands and no ethics.

[psyche101]

How many times have you tried to bite us with false tales. which others have pointed out to you as well?

Indeed SKy, all we have seen from Babe Ruth is his personal take, I am yet to see a shred of supporting information. It astounds me that anyone would think his contributions even equal yours let alone exceed them. As we all know opinions are like backsides. Everyone has one.

[DONTEATUS]

Que`s Sonny & Cher ! "And the BEat Goes On "

ITs just Flat out Amazing the $tupity of some people !

[Stundie]

I have one response to say about your video.

Its funnier because it's what you believe. lol

[Babe Ruth]

Psyche

The problem I have with people who present "evidence" that is fake is that they are willing to deceive and call it straight talk.

[Stundie]

My response to your flaw in your argument! :lol:

Oh the irony of an internet debunking warrior claiming he has more credibility than Gage is hilarious because you actually believe it too. lol

But, the majority of demolition experts, architects, and civil engineers back the official story, which Brent Blanchard proved with facts and evidence.

You have no majority. You are so stupid that you forgot you can't use people who have never been asked the question and say they support the official story. Without an ounce of shame you keep ignoring it because at the end of the day mate, you couldn't name anywhere near close to the name that Gage as got.

And Hoffman pours holes into Blanchard paper. If Blanchard who has demolished the same amount of buildings as Hoffman can debunk him, then he's not really the expert you claim he is. lol

[Stundie]

Do you mean, Why do 911 Truthers lie, deceive and mislead? After all, I am still waiting for 'Pilots of 911 Truth" to make serious corrections on its website.

The answer to that, is to look within yourself sonshine...lol

[Babe Ruth]

Not an ounce of shame, not a gram of shame.

[skyeagle409]

Its funnier because it's what you believe. lol

It is what the evidence depicts, not what I believe.

[skyeagle409]

Oh the irony of an internet debunking warrior claiming he has more credibility than Gage is hilarious because you actually believe it too.

Even the Thanksgiving turkey has more credibility than Richard Gage.

You have no majority.

How amusing, when it has been shown that 911 Truthers are in the minority.

And Hoffman pours holes into Blanchard paper. If Blanchard who has demolished the same amount of buildings as Hoffman can debunk him, then he's not really the expert you claim he is. lol

How amusing that you would say such a thing when Brent Blanchard, and the majority of demolition experts, architects, and civil engineers support the official story with evidence.

Edited May 7, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

The answer to that, is to look within yourself sonshine..

No pilot that I know supports that flawed website either. Just another reason why "Pilots for 911 Truth" is no more credible than a $9 bill.

[psyche101]

Seemed pretty neat when I saw somebody's avatar was a dolphin.

Turns out?

Name-calling remains the weapon of the statist, conformist, bigot.

Dolphins are supposed to be stealthy and benevolent.

Sometimes they kill sharks.

I think they dolphin guy should change his avatar to a shark.

There's my hard-hitting first comment on www.unexplained-mysteries.com

Dolphins rape even humans, they commit infanticide and slaughter other species such as Porpoises. There is a rumour that Demi Moore was "approached" by a Dolphin. They are wild animals. If you saw a wild animal on land that size, you would think twice about approaching it.

Edited May 8, 2013 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Psyche

The problem I have with people who present "evidence" that is fake is that they are willing to deceive and call it straight talk.

Babe Ruth

I am not sure that any deception was ever intended to be an end result. I have debated Sky many times too, and know he will let you fall into a trap if you let yourself do so. The simple fact that when asked he did not deny the truth at all I feel shows that when asked, one will receive an honest response. No offence, but it sounds more like you are really annoyed that he got the better of you, and you are taking your bat and ball and going home.

To be frank mate, your responses have been less than honest. You advocate TV shows as a source of "solid evidence" and then only provide vague references. How is that better?

[psyche101]

Even the Thanksgiving turkey has more credibility than Richard Gage.

No offence to anyone here, but damn, that was really funny!

[psyche101]

And Hoffman pours holes into Blanchard paper. If Blanchard who has demolished the same amount of buildings as Hoffman can debunk him, then he's not really the expert you claim he is. lol

I have been looking more into Hoffman, honestly mate, I do not see why you think he is anything special, he is a website designer who seems to be rather out of his league, and to me appears to be an example of hw to over think 911. He has not poked holes in Blancahrd's explanations, he has largely offered altenatives that he feels are more viable. For the life of me, I cannot agree. The paper on Aluminothermics is as far reaching as anything I have ever read, and again, insist the alternative he managed to squeeze in is the right option is only personal bias. And a decent serving of it too. All claims he has made he states are the result of thermite style incendiaries can also be explained by the plane crash, but he does not falsify the plane, he states the thermic explanation is superior. Why seems to be a personal choice.

Or his molten steel pools. Fair go. Steel does not stay in a molten pool under those circumstances, he had never seen them himself, but insist they were there, despite physics. And when speaking with John Gross, he claims that temps of 2,500 degrees F were noted on NASA's imagery.

GROSS

: First of all, let's go back to your basic premise that there was, ah, a pool of molten steel. I know absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses have said so, nobody whose produced it. I was on the site, I was on the steelyards, so, I don't know that that's so.

Steel melts at about two thousand six hundred degrees Fahrenheit.

Um, I think it's pretty difficult to get that kind of temperatures in, ah, fire. So, I don't know the basis -- I can't address your question if I don't know the basis.

QUESTIONER

: Well

NASA pictures, ah, thermal imaging show those sorts of temperatures

.

Looking at the data, this does not ring true at all. The highest temp was not half that. LINK

He seems to be rather upset that his "corrections" to the NIST report are denied, I don't know mate, seems to be more of a monumental ego than anything else, what actual information pieces of his do you find convincing?

[Stundie]

Seeming as you do not know, why take the very worst option first? Do you feel there is reason to believe some of the people were of such low character? Being complacent is the same as letting it happen really, I do not see why one would take the first option as the worst option when considering your fellow man?

I don't take the worse option, but I don't rule it out. This is why I work with possibilities. Let me explain.....

It is possible that these lies were told to the commission to cover up in competence or mistakes because we do not know why they lied.

It is possible that these lies were told to the commission to cover up something nefarious because we do not know why they lied.

All are possible, because until we know why they lied, either possibility is possible.

Which brings me on to answering your next questions. The fact is that there are people out there who are of such low character. You talk about your fellow man, well OBL was also a fellow man. Maybe he had different skin colour, speaks differently and has different ideals, maybe he wants you dead too. But he is such of a low character that you believe he did it. Do I believe that fellow man do such deeds, of course because my fellow man does evil everyday, all around the world.

People who think that their governments are not capable of doing such evil deeds only need to look at history and the murky stuff that countries, governments and the people involved have done and do. That doesn't automatically mean just because they have done some evil crap in the past, that they are automatically guilty either. Any argument that people in government could not do evil deeds is not really an argument. Therefore it is still possible, even if you truly believe that governments don't do evil acts and deeds.

Now I know I argue quite strongly in the favour of the conspiracy but only because when people say it isn't possible, there argument boils down to this point. Which doesn't disprove the possibility of a conspiracy for those people to have lied whether they let it happen or made it happen.

Ohh, OK, don't these men put a dent in your not coming forward theory though? i.e. "I've come to believe that people will say damn near anything, so I'm sure somebody will say all of that and more," says O'Neill, who was George Bush's top economic policy official.

And if you agree Bush was clueless, why do you place so much blame for death upon him?

I haven't put forward a "not coming forward" theory.

I don't put blame on Bush, I blame the Bush Admin full of the neocons who were orchestrating the invasion of Iraq long before 9/11. Bush was just a puppet, I think he realised it towards the end of his presidency and it goes someway to explaining why him and Cheney hardly spoke and why Bush wouldn't pardon Libby Scooter.

It might just be the way I read it, but this to me indicates he was disgruntled.

O'Neill is the only one who spoke on the record, but Suskind says that someone high up in the administration – Donald Rumsfeld - warned O'Neill not to do this book.

Was it a warning, or a threat?

You can disagree, that is fair enough, it just sounds like the sort of BS en ex employee with nothing, yet everything to say might announce. It's cheesy, corny, and a bit ridiculous really.

Even if we discount O'Neill, there is still Max Cleland who resigned once it appeared it was going to be a whitewash and the 2 head commissioners themselves said they were set up to fail. So I find it hardly shocking that you would think he is a disgruntled ex-employee when there are plenty of other sources which back his account and version of events.

I feel that is not what I am seeing here at UM. I am pretyy surprised at some of the nonsense I have seen to be frank. Near everything Babe Ruth posts almost seems to be made up on the spot. He referred the the Ancient Aliens show in another thread as proof. Lets face it, no sane person in their right mind would consider such tosh as fact. Babe Ruth does not care, as long as it buck the conventional explanation, and sticks one into the Government he is happy.

I do not think you should take members of UM as a representation of who 9/11 truthers. Some of them believe in ancient aliens, some of them don't. As for your opinions on Babe Ruth, I can only comment on the ones he (I think he's a he?!) posts on a couple of threads. I've found that when he is wrong, he admits it which I think is quite honest. I think he has more knowledge over the whole 9/11 conspiracy than me.

I do not see the truth movement as a new investigation at all. I see it is mere controversy. As Babe Ruth pointed out, we have surpassed a decade now, if they cannot make something more than rumour over the space of ten years, mate, you really have to think twice don't you? The hard part is that it is so fragmented as you pointed out with my broad brush, but still, I find almost all alternate theories like no planes and passengers faking their deaths completely unsupported and cruel to the victims survivors. It is totally unnecessary and unreasonable IMHO. You might not be as into the wild claims as many others, but it is hard to not lump you in with CT'ers because of this.

I know the CT'ers are unfounded in the wilder claims they make, and when they say things like Daddy faked his death for the Government, my blood boils, the kids survived by those dads should not be subject to this cruel insinuation. They have been through enough, there is no reason to think such an insane idea is true, none at all, nor the no plane BS. Nor the controlled demolition crap. If there is something untoward within the system that need to be exposed, I wold bet rags to riches it has absolutely nothing to do with a deliberate involvement, but with all these stupid childlike distractions in place, some who actually should be punished for dropping the ball may walk scot free. That is what the truth movement says it tries to prevent, yet from what I see it is assisting those who did wrong. But what do we know of the lies? Some were probably told to some people to cover something up. Who do I get mad at? Everyone? I do not know what the lies were, but I do know the truthers are often wrong and that they are hurting people.

Truthers may well be the reason that no responsibility is ever accounted for. As you know, I personally feel Bodine is the pivotal point here, I do feel she is without doubt responsible for allowing the attacks to happen, and through personal dislike of one of her colleagues To me, that is dropping the ball and she should be held accountable, but I think the truth movement trying to spread the blame has lessened the responsibility she deserves to carry. But you can throw Pikard in there too.

When the first truth movements were formed, they were united on getting a new investigatiom, but it seem like they have broken away and turned into a mish most of my CT theory is better than yours.

I wouldn't get angry at conspiracy theorists, even if you do not agree with the conspiracy theorists, you have to agree with the commissions and people who were in a position to know and said that we were not being told the whole truth. When the whole truth is not known, then these theories as to what really happened are going to flourish.

Q is a smart person, no doubt about it, but a sore loser and cannot admit when he is wrong.

Babe Ruth is so full of crap that a treatment plant would be jealous. Dead set, he never offers links, and when his sources are unearthed, they are shocking. I have not seen him admit that he is wrong, or that his sources are rubbish. Yet I can point you at another thread in the UFO section that shows he has no regard for fact whatsoever.

Honestly, I have no idea, time or care about UFOs. So pointing it too me would be like showing a Blu-ray of paint drying. lol

How do you pur a price on Religious satisfaction? As far as OBL is concerned, he is gearing up for the nythical afterlife with his 21 virgins. Sounds like crap to me. 21 young girls crying on your shoulder all night, no thanks. Spending might have gone through the roof but we are also on the tail end of the worst recession we have seen in decades. Wasn't much of a win.

What infrastructure was ripped apart? Shari'ah?

Who was being lied to? The commission or the terrorists? Sorry, bit confused.

I wouldn't have a clue on How I would put a price on Religious satisfaction" cause I'm not religious and my satisfactions are the work of the devil apparently..lol

I don't get the 21 virgins thing either, I mean I have only had the experience of sleeping with one virgin and it was the most rubbish sex ever. Then what happens after you've had your wicked way with them? lol No more virgins and an eternity with 21 women who have never got their freak on with anyone else and no other life experiences, I'm sorry but I'd rather god gave me 21 experienced whores...lol

And the commission was being lied to by various agencies and people, that we can take as a fact because it is well documented. If the hijackers were patsies, then they might have also been lied to, but they could have purposely intended on causing the jihad they are blamed for, but the government could have turned a blind eye and let it happen.

Lots of Iraq infrastructure was destroyed or already in tatters, whether it was bombed through the invasion, ransacking and looting after the liberation and sanctions put in after the gulf war of 1991, means that they still hadn't recovered or rebuilt infrastructure. I also seem to remember that all government departments were ransacked with the exception of the ministry of oil which was heavily guarded by US troops.

I have to say no, you're just wrong. Babe Ruth is far worse than Sky, and to be frank I fail to see how you do not come to the same conclusion. Didn't Babe Ruth say recently when Sky was asked a direct question, he answered it truthfully, even though it went against his argument?

I am not aware of the conversations between Babe Ruth and Skyeagle other than on this an the other thread I post on.

However, Skyeagle post shows me how I came to my conclusion. Last year he was arguing that thermite would have been found at GZ, where as now he argues there was never any thermite at GZ. There is no explanation of how this logical jump and contradiction occurred and asking Skyeagle to explain the difference is like asking a snake to do sign language.

I can't take the man seriously anymore. Now I know you that you might feel the same way about Babe Ruth, but I see a massive difference between their posting styles.

Yes, he ignores, but to be fair, I think he is ignored too. People just go "ohh, it's Sky" And having been in your debating shoes with regards to Sky, I understand what you are saying, but I cannot agree. Look at Babe Ruth, no matter what the subject, he will blame the Government. Does not even need a reason half the time. Sky on the other hand can differntiate, he will say cover ups happen, he will say the Governemtn is not always honest, and he will say you should question that which seems untoward, but he is not in this case. He can change his conviction, a panto, like Babe, cannot. With them, no matter the argument, the same answer applies.

He does admit mistakes.

Babe Ruth, on 23 April 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:

You may not be aware of it, but last year or so Sky posted a video, very convincing, of an F-18 crashing into a civilian apartment building or some such. When called upon it, Sky did (admirably) admit that it was a concocted video, completely fake..

I'm sorry psyche, but Skyeagle can't differentiate at all, I've seen that first hand. He has never said to me that cover ups happen, he has never said that the government is not always honest. Even when the flaws of his argument have been pointed out to him, rather than challenge them, he'll ignore them and then bring up the same points which have been refuted over again, even though they have already been addressed.

And I bet you that Sky was probably not aware that the video was a fake until it was pointed out to him. I'm sorry but I do not see any signs of intelligent debate with him, he just says the same thing over and over again until he has convinced himself, even when evidence contradicts him. Then there is the double standards. He posts pictures of the toy factory and an over pass to prove that fires brought down the WTC, but when it is pointed out to him that these comparisons are poor and better comparisons such as the other high rise buildings which have caught fire and didn't collapse, all of a sudden, the comparisons which are a much closer comparison to the WTC are all of a sudden, no good.

Sorry but I do not see why you would defend such hypocrisy..

I cannot see how the pictures Sky has presented are junk. Actual wreckage answers many claims the troothers make up. I do not see his point or pictures adressed, I just see people telling him not to post them. Can you place a sentence beneath each picture explaining why it should be discounted form the debate?

I have addressed his spam in the past and then what does he do.....Ignores all the points which highlight he is wrong.

Here is an example. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=241014&st=1515#entry4741926

In the above, he has ignored the points I have raised in the quote box and brings up the subject of verinage.

So I respond to him here. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=241014&st=1515#entry4748133

I address the point he has raised and then bring his attention back my original points.,

His response.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=241014&st=1515#entry4748348

Again, he ignores all the points I have raised and sticks with his mantra.

I don't address all of his pictures because most of the time, the stuff he brings up has nothing to do with the debate. He floods the forum with spam. Addressing his spam is a wasteful exercise as he NEVER responds to anything you post, he'll just cherry pick a quote and answer that.I could post numerous examples...

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=240942&view=findpost&p=4713032

I think the strawmen are rather mutual to be frank. Lets face it, over a decade and still banging the same drum? No solid proof after all this time? I can see this being a debate for decades to come. Honestly, what will that achieve?

He does use appeal to authority, I admit, he has a great deal of real world experience with the military. I have spoken with people I trust and I feel this is not only true, but he hangs around with High calibre people. It's bound to slip out, and I too have held that against him in the past, when I probably should not have. We can indeed learn from experience.

I think most people, not you, but certainly the other two, just feel they are smarter than Sky because they use big words. I do not feel that is the case at all. They might be able to talk circles around Sky, but in the real world, Sky actually does fly circles around them.

I try and avoid strawmen, because they are pointless.

And again, here you are demanding solid proof when I have already pointed out to you in the example I gave, that you do not have to prove to me who robbed me in order to prove you didn't. Or in otherwords CTers do not have to have solid proof that there is any truth in the conspiracy, when it is already proven that the official story is wrong.

I honestly have no idea what it will achieve, at one point I thought it might achieve a new investiagation, but the groups are too fragmented to do anything now.

He might have a great deal of military experience and hang around with high calibre people (Whatever that means?!) but I am not seeing anything remotely intelligent come from the mans fingers on to this forums screen. He repeats what he is told and when he is told he is wrong, he ignores it. The only person I know who claims Skyeagle is clever and smart is from Skyeagle himself, he has told me that he has much more experience than anyone on just about any subject. I can't comment on what Skyeagles real life experience because I do not know him, but usually when someone claims they are smart, they are actually trying to cover up their dumbness.

I agree that religion has good and bad points, but for me, it's hard to see good points about the Muslim way of life.

Christians do not electrocute anyone. Christians have not been law in the west since the Thirty Years War. They have not killed people in the name of God for centuries, they grew up. To a point. Electrocution? That's democracy for you.

I honestly think that If you do not see any good points about the muslim way of life, then either you do not know enough about the muslims way of life or that 9/11 as skewered your vision of muslims in general. Not all muslims are extremists. I know a few people who have travelled all over the world and into Afghanistan in the early 60's and they will tell you that it was one of the friendliest places they had ever been too.

I also had a school friend whose father is from Afghanistan and he would often tell us about how beautiful his country was and how his father grew up in an olive orchard, how they had health care, that women studied, that they had movie theatres and well kept roads. It was a mixture of modern culture and that of the old world but this had been completely destroyed in the ravages of war and the subsequent extremism.

The laws of our lands in the UK and US are based on Christian principles. Look at most of the states which have the death penalty and you will find them mostly full of Christian people who support the death penalty.

If you break the law in a muslim country, you can face the death penalty.

If you break the law in the US, you can face the death penalty.

Arguing that muslims countries have stricter laws or that you can be killed for far less doesn't mean the US is justified in using the death penalty. Arguing that the muslims choice of death penaltiy whether it is stoning or beheading is more inhumane than say hanging, electric chair or lethal injection. If you think that the death penalties in muslim countries is wrong and immoral, then you should also find the same with the US, but I am not seeing you arguing that death penalties are all wrong, just the muslims ones.

Cheers

Stundie

[Stundie]

It is what the evidence depicts, not what I believe.

If you believe that this is what the evidence depicts, then it is what you believe then is it not?? lol

[Stundie]

Even the Thanksgiving turkey has more credibility than Richard Gage.

Well if that is the case, then you have as much credibility as the gravy poured on the turkey...lol

How amusing, when it has been shown that 911 Truthers are in the minority.

But you were arguing that the majority of experts agree with the official report but that is only the case if you support a logical fallacy and assume those who have never been asked or questioned automatically support the official story.

How amusing that you would say such a thing when Brent Blanchard, and the majority of demolition experts, architects, and civil engineers support the official story with evidence.

Well I'll await a list of these majority of demolition experts, architects and engineers who have openly stated they support the official story.

[Stundie]

No pilot that I know supports that flawed website either. Just another reason why "Pilots for 911 Truth" is no more credible than a $9 bill.

An argument from personal incredulity. The logical fallacies you employ never ceased to amaze me. lol

Just because you do not know any pilots, doesn't mean that other pilots do not agree either. lol