If you were under 15 on 9/11 click here

[Babe Ruth]

LG

My guess is that Bush himself had nothing to do with the firing of Ryan. I doubt Bush himself had nothing to do with the events of 11 September. I learned a long time ago what 'plausible deniability' means and how it is achieved.

Steel is a fair conductor of heat. I've seen numerous references to the temperatures achieved that day in WTC, and none of them were hot enough. Absent a blast furnace of some sort, none of them were concentrated enough, and the steel conducts the heat away. Ryan was not citing rocket science, just plain physics and the obvious--building standards and fire codes are there for a reason. YOU were the one claiming Common Sense influences your decision making, it would be nice to see you live up to that. Understand that you have a certain impediment there, since you disdain reading between the lines.

Without going back to coordinate the times of the cell phone calls with the FDR for 93, as I recall the flight was over 20,000 feet when they were made. I recognize your refusal to study the design limitations of the cell system, and understand that refusal.

My apologies if I have not been forthcoming enough with MY PERSONAL theories regarding the events of the day. I do have a few, but they are all speculation.

What is important BR, and what is painfully obvious to the curious mind, is that the Official Story is a damn lie. Only that is certain. Speculation is fun, and makes for good conversation, but it is not particularly important. In this case, just as every photo and video taken of the Shanksville site shows nothing even remotely suggesting an airliner crash (including your 'mushroom cloud' , and the testimony of all non-federal employees confirmed those pictures and videos.

747

I hope you caught my comment regarding speculation and theories. I offer some of both, but one need not offer either by

merely observing that the official story is false.

[skyeagle409]

Steel is a fair conductor of heat. I've seen numerous references to the temperatures achieved that day in WTC, and none of them were hot enough.

The temperatures were hot enough to weaken steel.

Absent a blast furnace of some sort, none of them were concentrated enough, and the steel conducts the heat away.

When steel is heated, it expands, and when there is no room for expansion, you are going to see buckling, which occurred in the WTC buildings.

Edited July 4, 2012 by skyeagle409

[cenobite]

i wished i lived in Babe Ruth's world it seems a lot more exciting than the real world i live in

[booNyzarC]

i wished i lived in Babe Ruth's world it seems a lot more exciting than the real world i live in

I wouldn't mind visiting occasionally, but actually live there? Nah, not for me.

[Babe Ruth]

Whew! I'm relieved!

Wilful ignorance is a sad thing to behold.

[cenobite]

chronic delusion is a sad thing to behold

[Babe Ruth]

'Tis.

But there is often an explanation for it.

[cenobite]

LSD....

only jokin BR

[DONTEATUS]

What part of Airliners hitting the Towers and doing what that would do to them is everyone missing? Mid ! Help my brain out here ! Anyone ever see a 767 or 757 hit a building that morn and wonder just how long it was going to stand?

The Second I watched the second plane hit I knew they were both going to come down ! Anyone remember there lessons in physics ? Gravity really is a force to be considered !even a little weaken main frames of the two buildings would result in the same thing THey both come down ! THere were no bombs,no government secret missions People Get back to reality !

Mid ! HELP me get the minnows off my back !

[MID]

What part of Airliners hitting the Towers and doing what that would do to them is everyone missing? Mid ! Help my brain out here ! Anyone ever see a 767 or 757 hit a building that morn and wonder just how long it was going to stand?

The Second I watched the second plane hit I knew they were both going to come down ! Anyone remember there lessons in physics ? Gravity really is a force to be considered !even a little weaken main frames of the two buildings would result in the same thing THey both come down ! THere were no bombs,no government secret missions People Get back to reality !

Mid ! HELP me get the minnows off my back !

Well, let's not worry about the minnows, D!

I don't think anyone ever saw a 757/767 smack into abuilding.

You're going to get arguments from folks indicating that the buildings were designed to withstand a 707 impact, but that is erroneous.

The buildings were infact designed to accept a 707 impact at final approach speeds...since that's the only possible way an airplane in the New \York City airspace could hit one of the buildings. An unlikely, yet terrible mistake by an aircrew or a controller flying and monitoring an approach...perhaps way off the localizer due to inattentiveness.

No one ever anticipated or designed for a cruise speed impact at less than 1000 feet AGL of airplanes that had 2 to three times the mass of a 707....and 4 times the speed!

Thats between 8 and 12 times the energy of impact.

Prior to 9-11, thinking to design for such a thing (if it could've been done within budget) would likely have gotten you stared at in a funny way!

Anyoneone who tells you that those buildings were designed for such a thing is nuts.

And look D, most folks, especially CTs, have no concept of engineering principals and such that would help them understand the potentials. You can't convince a died-in-the-wool CT that 9-11 happened exactly as it was described.

It's evidently pointless, despite the fact that it's scientifically established what occurred.

Some folks will hold on to their cherished illusions, and, combined with the utter incredulity of the situation, fabricate all sorts of CTs.

thus, we see 9-11 being a Bush sponsored inside job ( ), a missile struck the Pentagon, an impossible maneuver--a descending turn into a low angle acceleration and slamming into a building ( ) --done by the terrorist who flew into the Pentagon, we see that flight 93 couldn't have crashed in Shanksville PA, and fairy stories about no airplane parts nor human remains--when we found both at the site...at all sites.

I don't think you can end this sort of thinking, D. I hate to sound cynical about it, but the actual evidence does seem to indicate that a CT is a CT, and will hold onto that attitude, and the theories they come up with, for a very long time.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Steel is a fair conductor of heat. I've seen numerous references to the temperatures achieved that day in WTC, and none of them were hot enough. Absent a blast furnace of some sort, none of them were concentrated enough, and the steel conducts the heat away. Ryan was not citing rocket science, just plain physics and the obvious--building standards and fire codes are there for a reason. YOU were the one claiming Common Sense influences your decision making, it would be nice to see you live up to that. Understand that you have a certain impediment there, since you disdain reading between the lines.

I'm not going to look back through the thread to see where 'common sense' was invoked, but I don't trust your recollection of it as accurate. I know that none of my points rely on 'common sense' except in the most abstract way; weren't you the one not too long ago referring to how most people used to think the world was flat, i.e., was the common sense explanation? And that just happened to be 100% incorrect? Regardless, you cannot avoid the fact that you wouldn't need to appeal to empty arguments relying invalidly on common sense or 'reading between the lines' if you had a smidgen of evidence for your positions. I asked you very specific questions concerning the WTC collapse that you should be able to easily answer if it's 'just plain physics and the obvious'; you couldn't.

Without going back to coordinate the times of the cell phone calls with the FDR for 93, as I recall the flight was over 20,000 feet when they were made. I recognize your refusal to study the design limitations of the cell system, and understand that refusal.

I recognize your inability to answer simple questions that you should be able to given I'm supposed to apparently just take your word as undeniably true on cell phone technology. Just like all the specific questions I've asked you in order to make some headway on a specific point to see where on god's earth you are coming from with your statements, you couldn't answer those. I did try to find an explanation to your assertion concerning cell phones on airplanes, as usual doing your work for you, I can't find anyone giving an explanation of why this is not possible. I found a study from the FAA and Carnegie Mellon concluding that some cell calls are made on planes with some frequency; when I mentioned this before, with a wave of your expert hand you 'refuted' it with the mighty, 'they're lying, of course the government will say that, the whole purpose of that study was to lend credence to the Flight 93 hoax story', to paraphrase. Accompanied by no evidence.

What is important BR, and what is painfully obvious to the curious mind, is that the Official Story is a damn lie. Only that is certain. Speculation is fun, and makes for good conversation, but it is not particularly important. In this case, just as every photo and video taken of the Shanksville site shows nothing even remotely suggesting an airliner crash (including your 'mushroom cloud' , and the testimony of all non-federal employees confirmed those pictures and videos.

I'll give you that your mind is indeed curious, no argument there for sure. If you can't even reach the very low bar of speculation, you've pretty much demonstrated irrefutably that you are then in no position to be making very strong claims of a more empirical nature about what 'cannot' be. You apparently think it's entirely reasonable to just state that Flight 93 didn't go down in Shanksville based on your mystic powers to identify inconsistencies in debris patterns, but not provide any evidence or even remotely convincing explanation of where Flight 93 is if it didn't crash, where are the passengers, how do you explain the witnesses, all the other things we've been talking about (more like, I've been talking about, to a brick wall...) for weeks now. Addressing all the evidence that is inconsistent with your position is not optional, it is a minimum requirement; that's how... well I was going to say 'that's how science is done', but that's just how plain ol' rationality is done.

I think the fact that I'm responding to you at all indicates I'm curious, but I'm also skeptical as the default as I think everyone should be. You've failed to satisfactorily answer the most basic question of a skeptical, non-gullible mind: 'how do you know that?' I can think of numerous scenarios that would change my mind on Flight 93, pieces of evidence that might lead me to believe your theory, as hair-brained and unempirical as it is currently, might be correct. Can you say the same? I've seen no indication from you that any evidence could change your mind outside of time travel.

[Czero 101]

LG...

Props for having the patience to deal with BR's BS. I gave up a few months ago after realizing that I was having more intelligent and meaningful conversations with my neighbour's cat.

As you have correctly surmised, he will NEVER provide you with any factual evidence. He has no time for actual evidence or intellectual honesty (but he's not above fabricating things to make his story sound more interesting) since his opinion and his proven tendency towards confirmation bias are all that matter to him.

These are pretty much the only things that matters to him:

- he's claimed that he's not here to convince anyone of anything so he is naturally above the common courtesy of providing actual evidence and verifiable facts to support the opinions he presents when asked repeatedly to do so.

- the government has lied before so anything and everything that it says about 9/11now is also a lie

- any evidence provided that counters his opinion - so essentially, ALL contrary evidence presented - is all part of the government cover-up and, as you have already noted, can just be hand-waved away

- and his own flight experience, which consists of being some random crew on a helicopter at some point in the 60's / 70's I think. and crop dusting, which naturally makes him an expert on what can and cannot be done with modern passenger airliners, how they're designed and how their automated flight control systems work.... all of which he has shown absolutely no aptitude or competence with.

I'll add that I enjoy reading your posts. Hopefully your patience in dealing with this under-the-bridge dweller lasts longer than mine and others.

Good luck...

Cz

Edited July 4, 2012 by Czero 101

[MID]

Whew! I'm relieved!

Wilful ignorance is a sad thing to behold.

Yes.

It is...

[+Liquid Gardens]

I'll add that I enjoy reading your posts. Hopefully your patience in dealing with this under-the-bridge dweller lasts longer than mine and others.

Good luck...

Thanks Czero, and thanks for the heads-up on that subliminal messages thread where I didn't realize how old the thread was and that I was responding to a something from 2001, oops. I'm a noob and got thrown off when Nathan Jones shotgunned the entire forum with posts.

I can see how you got tired of engaging in any depth with this type of 'argumentation', gotta admit I think I'm starting to run dry myself. I knew quite a bit about 9/11 already, but hadn't read all the refutations of all the different points CTs bring up, but have read many of them in responding to this stuff. In theory, you'd think that by moving detailed point by detailed point with someone who disagrees with you, you could maybe come to the specific spot where one could show the other that their particular position is not supported. As far as progress with BR, I feel like I've barely scratched the surface after all this, but I think that's because that's all there is to his position: surface. It's kinda fun to watch his responses though; I know when they are filled with comments about gullibility or being sheep or other psychological projections that have nothing to do with the point we're discussing, that his back is against the wall from an argumentation/evidence standpoint. Increasingly though I'm not thinking that BR is really trying to argue in good faith, I think he's trying to convince by giving a sermon and/or a sales pitch.

Anyway, thanks again, glad you enjoy reading my interactions with him, at least someone is getting something out of it. If I say something you disagree with or that I'm wrong about, definitely interject, I am curious to see if there really is much substance to the CTs, and so far I'm not seeing much justification for them. I haven't read some other people's posts here though where it looks like they laid out lots more detail to dig into and a semi-coherent explanation for more of the evidence, so can't say for sure that they're all meritless.

[booNyzarC]

Czero isn't the only one who is impressed with your efforts LG. I've grown tired of the 911 arguments myself, but it is both encouraging and inspiring to see someone such as yourself take up the torch.

Cheers mate.

[+Liquid Gardens]

I presume that is what the non-Official version puts forward, that it was decided in advance that Shanksville was the place selected for the faked crash, and the fake UA93 (or the real one) was deliberately flown towards that spot, and then the pyrotechnics that had been planted were set off, and then it- well, what? It was taken down below the radar and diverted to some nearby convenient military base, (did anyone report seeing an aircraft resembling an airliner flying suspiciously and furtively low subsequent to the supposed crash of UA93, by the way?) Is that what the alterbative theory supposes?

Exactly, excellent question, what is this alternative theory. I think there's a reason why most CTs have, from what I can see, backed away from or do not hold to the idea that UA93 didn't crash. Because the only alternatives we can come up if that was the case are so implausible.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Thanks Boony, and props again to you, Sky, ceno, 747, MID, Raptor, and I'm sure others (I skipped a month when reading through this thread, just too many posts going way back) for even taking the time to engage with these theories, and for providing the details you have on the things I wasn't aware of.

[booNyzarC]

Thanks Boony, and props again to you, Sky, ceno, 747, MID, Raptor, and I'm sure others (I skipped a month when reading through this thread, just too many posts going way back) for even taking the time to engage with these theories, and for providing the details you have on the things I wasn't aware of.

Just wait until you run into some of swanny's stuff. Really quite spectacular and I wish he was around more often these days.

[W Tell]

I can see how you got tired of engaging in any depth with this type of 'argumentation', gotta admit I think I'm starting to run dry myself. I knew quite a bit about 9/11 already, but hadn't read all the refutations of all the different points CTs bring up, but have read many of them in responding to this stuff. In theory, you'd think that by moving detailed point by detailed point with someone who disagrees with you, you could maybe come to the specific spot where one could show the other that their particular position is not supported. As far as progress with BR, I feel like I've barely scratched the surface after all this, but I think that's because that's all there is to his position: surface. It's kinda fun to watch his responses though; I know when they are filled with comments about gullibility or being sheep or other psychological projections that have nothing to do with the point we're discussing, that his back is against the wall from an argumentation/evidence standpoint. Increasingly though I'm not thinking that BR is really trying to argue in good faith, I think he's trying to convince by giving a sermon and/or a sales pitch.

Anyway, thanks again, glad you enjoy reading my interactions with him, at least someone is getting something out of it. If I say something you disagree with or that I'm wrong about, definitely interject, I am curious to see if there really is much substance to the CTs, and so far I'm not seeing much justification for them. I haven't read some other people's posts here though where it looks like they laid out lots more detail to dig into and a semi-coherent explanation for more of the evidence, so can't say for sure that they're all meritless.

When alls said and done, defending a position against what offialdom has deemed as right and proper is a very slow and diffucult uphill battle. Always has been. I'm not going to pretend that everyone that takes up the gauntlet for the CT crowd has the discussions best interest in heart, but I believe it is easy to see how the dishearted of the OCT people jump into the fray with little but ad hominim and insults making conversation difficult. At best.

The OCT gets the luxory of having their story backed for them by officaldom. One complete story with the bullet points provided.

CT folk come from many differant angles, from many walks of life, and even when they bring an expert in he is downplayed because some government officials say differantly. What we bring to the table, no matter how solid it is, is dismissed by a quik copy and paste the OCT have probably never read. Dealing with some, it becomes all to obviouse.

But there are some points of contention when we get right down to it. Points that aren't explained away with the wave of a hand. Maybe you already know what I'm talking about, but if not, stick around. The conversation always leads backto them.

[skyeagle409]

When alls said and done, defending a position against what offialdom has deemed as right and proper is a very slow and diffucult uphill battle. Always has been. I'm not going to pretend that everyone that takes up the gauntlet for the CT crowd has the discussions best interest in heart, but I believe it is easy to see how the dishearted of the OCT people jump into the fray with little but ad hominim and insults making conversation difficult. At best.

The OCT gets the luxory of having their story backed for them by officaldom. One complete story with the bullet points provided.

CT folk come from many differant angles, from many walks of life, and even when they bring an expert in he is downplayed because some government officials say differantly. What we bring to the table, no matter how solid it is, is dismissed by a quik copy and paste the OCT have probably never read. Dealing with some, it becomes all to obviouse.

But there are some points of contention when we get right down to it. Points that aren't explained away with the wave of a hand. Maybe you already know what I'm talking about, but if not, stick around. The conversation always leads backto them.

It boils down to what the evidence depicts. The CT folks tend to take a simple issue and turn it into a monster and one of the reasons why I have brought up Cleveland and United 93 from time to time is because that is a prime example of what I am talking about. They prematurely make claims that later turned out to be false, which is typical.

[+Liquid Gardens]

When alls said and done, defending a position against what offialdom has deemed as right and proper is a very slow and diffucult uphill battle. Always has been. I'm not going to pretend that everyone that takes up the gauntlet for the CT crowd has the discussions best interest in heart, but I believe it is easy to see how the dishearted of the OCT people jump into the fray with little but ad hominim and insults making conversation difficult. At best.

The OCT gets the luxory of having their story backed for them by officaldom. One complete story with the bullet points provided.

Hi W Tell,

I see what you're saying here, and agree that CTs may have a more difficult task under certain circumstances. However, it's also possible that the CTs have a difficult battle because the OCT is actually a pretty decent, and maybe most importantly, parsimonious explanation for what happened. As far as the insults and such, I kinda disregard that stuff, if someone is being abusive to you just ignore them (and I think that's at some level against the rules here anyway). If someone actually commits the ad hominem fallacy, call it out I say; that's what this is all about to me, exchanging ideas and debating and letting the statements and arguments speak for themselves.

And I'm game, let's try and just drop all 'officialdom' and thereby set aside the notion of CTs having to 'defend' their positions; I'll try and keep all statements or evidence of whatever things the CT constitutes as 'officialdom' as tainted and unreliable. CTs can then approach it like most other propositions, state their theory and the reasons and evidence for it, and we can evaluate how plausible it is and how it fits with other untainted evidence and arguments. The problem I see, with my experience to date, is that first, all some CTs seem to have is nitpicks about the OCT as if those nitpicks erase all the evidence counter to their position. Second, and I'm unclear on what all you would designate 'official', depending on where you draw the line that wipes out tons of evidence that can't be used to support either the OCT or the particular CT. Also, as I'm sure you aware, dropping 'officialdom' does not mean that is evidence at all for a particular CT; if we drop the OCT idea that UA93 crashed in Shanksville that does not mean that lends any credence to the idea that it did not, it just means we're not accepting as true anything in or deriving from 'officialdom'.

CT folk come from many differant angles, from many walks of life, and even when they bring an expert in he is downplayed because some government officials say differantly. What we bring to the table, no matter how solid it is, is dismissed by a quik copy and paste the OCT have probably never read. Dealing with some, it becomes all to obviouse.

You're correct, it's not right to paint all CTs with the same brush, I was just commenting on my experience to date. I'll admit also that there are difficulties debate-wise once you get into dueling experts. I try to find where one has in some way responded to points the other has brought up and evaluate them that way but that isn't usually possible. But I think it's fair to point out that when dealing with a point such as whether the fires in WCT were hot enough to weaken the steel, when you have a few experts on one side saying it's not possible and more experts on the other side who are saying it is feasible, and a whole lot of other experts who aren't involved directly but who do have the expertise to evaluate that question and who are not bringing up that the OCT is flawed on that point, it's fair to use that fact against the minority position, short of us conducting the experiments first hand. This particular point is immune to government influence and deals strictly with facts of science anyway: steel weakens at a certain temperature and jet-fuel fires along with building material can exceed that temperature in the vast majority of references I can find.

But there are some points of contention when we get right down to it. Points that aren't explained away with the wave of a hand. Maybe you already know what I'm talking about, but if not, stick around. The conversation always leads backto them.

I definitely will watch for those more difficult points, thanks; good to hear that there's more to it.

[W Tell]

Hi W Tell,

And I'm game, let's try and just drop all 'officialdom' and thereby set aside the notion of CTs having to 'defend' their positions; I'll try and keep all statements or evidence of whatever things the CT constitutes as 'officialdom' as tainted and unreliable. CTs can then approach it like most other propositions, state their theory and the reasons and evidence for it, and we can evaluate how plausible it is and how it fits with other untainted evidence and arguments. The problem I see, with my experience to date, is that first, all some CTs seem to have is nitpicks about the OCT as if those nitpicks erase all the evidence counter to their position. Second, and I'm unclear on what all you would designate 'official', depending on where you draw the line that wipes out tons of evidence that can't be used to support either the OCT or the particular CT. Also, as I'm sure you aware, dropping 'officialdom' does not mean that is evidence at all for a particular CT; if we drop the OCT idea that UA93 crashed in Shanksville that does not mean that lends any credence to the idea that it did not, it just means we're not accepting as true anything in or deriving from 'officialdom'.

You're correct, it's not right to paint all CTs with the same brush, I was just commenting on my experience to date. I'll admit also that there are difficulties debate-wise once you get into dueling experts. I try to find where one has in some way responded to points the other has brought up and evaluate them that way but that isn't usually possible. But I think it's fair to point out that when dealing with a point such as whether the fires in WCT were hot enough to weaken the steel, when you have a few experts on one side saying it's not possible and more experts on the other side who are saying it is feasible, and a whole lot of other experts who aren't involved directly but who do have the expertise to evaluate that question and who are not bringing up that the OCT is flawed on that point, it's fair to use that fact against the minority position, short of us conducting the experiments first hand. This particular point is immune to government influence and deals strictly with facts of science anyway: steel weakens at a certain temperature and jet-fuel fires along with building material can exceed that temperature in the vast majority of references I can find.

If you'd like to dictate the rules, I'd be more than happy to comply. I really don't know where to start to make it an even footing for both of us. But if you have some guidlines in mind, I'll be glad to hear them and we can work from there.

[booNyzarC]

May I suggest the following as rule #1?

No disregarding of a point made by the other side. If it is brought up, it is addressed in some fashion, and with more substance than "BS", "Nonsense", "Propaganda", or things of the like.

Rule #2...

If your point is lost, concede it publicly and don't ignore it.

I can come up with more.

[DONTEATUS]

Mid this is it in a NUTSHELL ! Key word there "NUTSHELL" the CT`s of the world really do not have a leg to stand on due to there own beliefs in that we all came from some strange place without any ability to self think through a sitiuation. Whats a person to Do ?

[W Tell]

May I suggest the following as rule #1?

No disregarding of a point made by the other side. If it is brought up, it is addressed in some fashion, and with more substance than "BS", "Nonsense", "Propaganda", or things of the like.

Rule #2...

If your point is lost, concede it publicly and don't ignore it.

I can come up with more.

I could go along with that. I truely hate it though when one post has twenty differant questions that demands a response. Go slow and easy, I'd appreciate it.