9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Why?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:01 pm Post subject:

DeFecToR wrote:

This is the kind of nonsense i got fed up with countering here.

Absolute idiocy. No offence intended Aggle-rithm but what type of person do you expect to convince with that rubbish?

If this were at all a posibility, why has this suggestion not been brought out by SOMEONE, ANYONE supporting the official theory?
The reason is, beacause this logc is utterly ridiculous and no one with any sense would buy it.

Great. Another 3 minutes of my life wasted on you idiots.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I'm not saying there were large chunks of recognizable airline pieces miles from the crash...there weren't large chunks of ANYTHING left. By "debris" I basically mean "trash". If it's part of the wreckage, then it's significant; if not, then it's just trash.

You find it hard to believe that there was trash in the Pennsylvania countryside? And that, since there were no easily recognizable pieces of debris left, that an uneducated farmer might mistake trash for debris?

As to why the suggestion hasn't been made to use this to support the official story...I've got news for you. The "official story" is not disputed by anyone but a few uninformed fringe elements.

This, of course, is all overlooking the fact that when I said "my gut tells me", I made it clear that I was simply stating my opinion. I never claimed that I had evidence to support my statement; however, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be true. Thus, you are attacking a straw man.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 1:04 pm Post subject:

marky 54 wrote:

chipmonk you just dont listen first of all you havnt settles any of my issues and secondly ive seen that coroner report loads of times although i have also seen stuff that say the opposite to it, so i am not going to be pushed into being easily led by one side or the other, i still stand that someone is lieing who i dont know i can only come to my own conclusions, but the fact is that coroner report has been contridicted.

marky 54,

You are allowed to use a period more than once per post.

Just thought I'd mention it, in the interests of clear communication.

DeFecToR
Moderate Poster

Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 4:59 pm Post subject:

aggle-rithm wrote:

By "debris" I basically mean "trash". If it's part of the wreckage, then it's significant; if not, then it's just trash.

Ask yourself; Why would they describe something as being debris from a plane crash if it wasnt? I think crash investigators know what they are looking for, no?

aggle-rithm wrote:

You find it hard to believe that there was trash in the Pennsylvania countryside? And that, since there were no easily recognizable pieces of debris left, that an uneducated farmer might mistake trash for debris?

Please show me where it was reported that uneducated farmers were the ones who found the wreckage.

aggle-rithm wrote:

As to why the suggestion hasn't been made to use this to support the official story...I've got news for you. The "official story" is not disputed by anyone but a few uninformed fringe elements.

Eh? This statement, like most of what you've said here, doesnt make sense.
Surely if they found 'debris' from a large area, then they would wish to explain it? It has nothing to do with 'questioning the official story'. Its about CREATING the official story through analysis of the evidence.

aggle-rithm wrote:

This, of course, is all overlooking the fact that when I said "my gut tells me", I made it clear that I was simply stating my opinion.

Which is what i was commenting on.

aggle-rithm wrote:

I never claimed that I had evidence to support my statement;

No, but there is evidence that something happened while the plane was in the air; the debris field points towards that fact.
However, this does not fit with the explanation that YOU wish to believe so you dismiss it out of hand and invent obsurdities as an alternative. All, as you say, without the slightest bit of evidence.

aggle-rithm wrote:

Thus, you are attacking a straw man.

How on earth can you say i was attacking a straw man? I was commenting on your method of logic.
You said something that was nonsense, and i commented on it. Its quite simple really.
If i am attacking a straw man, it is one you have created.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James

blackcat
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:06 pm Post subject:

Aggle-rithm

Quote:

Quote:
And is there stuff 2 to 8 miles away at the Pentagon crash?

or even stuff that was there all along??

blackcat
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:32 pm Post subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc "Nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there... No smoke.... No fire.... The hole was about 15- 20 feet long and about 10 feet wide." Another amazing folding plane!!!

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject:

DeFecToR wrote:

Ask yourself; Why would they describe something as being debris from a plane crash if it wasnt? I think crash investigators know what they are looking for, no?

Here are excerpts from the article that is the source of this information:

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.

Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday.

....snip.....

In a morning briefing, state Police Major Lyle Szupinka confirmed that debris from the plane had turned up in relatively far-flung sites, including the residential area of Indian Lake. Investigators appealed to any residents who had come across such debris, in the surrounding countryside or even in their yards, to contact them, emphasizing that even the smallest remnants could prove to be important clues.

It says "residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville" found the debris. It was turned over to the investigators, but it doesn't say what the investigators found -- probably because they hadn't had a chance to look at it yet.

Look at the last part of the excerpt. If you lived in an area near an earth-shattering event like this, and investigators asked you to comb your property looking for anything that MIGHT be a clue, and specifically said that ANYTHING, no matter how small, might be crucial evidence -- are you telling me that you would infallibly be able to distinguish between papers, clothing, etc. from that crash and similar materials from a more mundane source?

Quote:

Please show me where it was reported that uneducated farmers were the ones who found the wreckage.

The report was that residents in an area outside Shanksville found debris. I said that IF these residents were uneducated farmers, and it's a pretty safe bet that at least some of them were, then they would not likely to be able to distinguish an important clue from ordinary trash. Even educated people would have difficulty with this, unless they were trained to investigate crash scenes.

Quote:

The debris found a large distance away was generally light material like clothing and paper, which was thrown up into the air by the explosion and wind-blown to other areas. Heavier aircraft parts were found downhill from the crash site, in the same direction that the plane was travelling -- not much mystery there.

Anyway, what difference does it make? With so many CT'ers complaining that the planes weren't shot down (which supposedly proves that the government was in on it), why make such a big deal because you believe flight 93 was shot down?

(Unless you believe that flight 93 didn't go down? If so, how does YOUR interpretation of the evidence support your belief?)

Quote:

The main thrust of my argument was that using news sources from just a few days after the incident, when the investigation was just getting started, is not a good idea if you want to get to the truth. As an aside, I offered my opinion that some of the debris found may have just been ordinary trash. You chose to attack this opinion rather than the central point of my argument.

That is why I call it a straw man.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:52 pm Post subject:

blackcat wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc

Shocked

"Nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there... No smoke.... No fire.... The hole was about 15- 20 feet long and about 10 feet wide."

Another amazing folding plane!!!

The quote was closer to "...from my estimate I would guess that it was probably about 15-20 feet long and probably about 10 feet wide."

Interesting how you left out the words "guess" and "probably".

A question: Do you believe the crash site was faked? If so, why do you think they didn't create the sort of crash site you would see in the movies, so that the more thick-headed viewers would be convinced?

Do you believe anything, or are you just trying to find fault with the "official story"?

blackcat
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject:

Quote:

nteresting how you left out the words "guess" and "probably".

Not remotely interesting at all. I posted the link to the video and clearly had the remarkt in quotes so it was an opinion being given. Anyone can get the full thing as you did. Do you seriously think you have made some great discovery by spending thirty seconds listening to the full link? Oh wait a minute... by responding with that drivel you have avoided the point of the video and also ignored the second time I asked

"And is there stuff 2 to 8 miles away at the Pentagon crash?"

Make that three times now.

Also - since the man at the site "guessed" the hole was 15-20 feet by 10 feet what do you make of it?? In fact what do you make of the video showing a small hole and no smoke or fire?

Quote:

A question: Do you believe the crash site was faked? If so, why do you think they didn't create the sort of crash site you would see in the movies, so that the more thick-headed viewers would be convinced?

Yes - blatantly faked!! Why not more convincing? How should I know? Maybe they did not intend it to happen the way it did and did not have time to make it look more convincing. I have questions - NOT answers!

Quote:

Do you believe anything, or are you just trying to find fault with the "official story"?

I do not have to try and find fault with it. It * leaps out like a barrel on a baby's arse. I do not know what to believe - they are telling such an obvious pack of lies I want a PROPER enquiry to try to bring the ACTUAL murderers to justice.
Y

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:28 pm Post subject:

blackcat wrote:

Not remotely interesting at all. I posted the link to the video and clearly had the remarkt in quotes so it was an opinion being given.

That's not what putting something in quotes means.

Quote:

Anyone can get the full thing as you did. Do you seriously think you have made some great discovery by spending thirty seconds listening to the full link?

Unfortunately, it's not a great discovery to find that a conspiracy theorist has conveniently left out part of a quote and/or taken it out of context to support his viewpoint. Such occurances are commonplace, but I find it mildly interesting when I see it happen again and again because it suggests that "truthers" are not really interested in the truth.

Quote:

Oh wait a minute... by responding with that drivel you have avoided the point of the video and also ignored the second time I asked

"And is there stuff 2 to 8 miles away at the Pentagon crash?"

Make that three times now.

To answer your question: I don't know. Relevance?

Quote:

Also - since the man at the site "guessed" the hole was 15-20 feet by 10 feet what do you make of it??

That he probably guessed wrong, and that he definately didn't take out a tape and measure it.

Quote:

In fact what do you make of the video showing a small hole and no smoke or fire?

That a plane crashed there at a steep angle at high speeds, and that the flammable materials burned away pretty quickly. The estimate for the Twin Towers was that the jet fuel would normally take about five minutes to be consumed in a fire, so I wouldn't be surprised if it burned that quickly here, since there were no surrounding materials to burn.

Quote:

Yes - blatantly faked!! Why not more convincing? How should I know?
Maybe they did not intend it to happen the way it did and did not have time to make it look more convincing. I have questions - NOT answers!

Maybe you should pay more attention to the people that DO have the answers, such as the people who were there and who have experience investigating crash scenes.

Quote:

I do not have to try and find fault with it. It * leaps out like a barrel on a baby's arse.

Only if two conditions are satisfied: You prefer to believe in a government conspiracy, and you lack the necessary skills to critically examine the evidence.

Quote:

I do not know what to believe - they are telling such an obvious pack of lies I want a PROPER enquiry to try to bring the ACTUAL murderers to justice.
Y

I think you do know what to believe, and the only reason you call "them" liars is that what they say is inconsistent with what you believe. (This is classic circular thinking, by the way: They're liars because you don't believe what they say, and you don't believe what they say because they're liars. )

Also, the purpose of an enquiry is not to come to a predetermined conclusion; that is, punish the people you have decided are responsible. It is to find out the truth, whether it is palatable to you or not.

DeFecToR
Moderate Poster

Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:36 am Post subject:

_________________ "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." -William James

blackcat
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:58 am Post subject:

Quote:

To answer your question: I don't know. Relevance?

The relevance is that two identical planes on the same morning in similar weather conditions in the same region crashed and one left wreckage strewn for miles around whereas the other left next to nothing.

I see the man must have been mistaken about the hole because it suits you to disbelieve him even though you accuse me of believing what I want to believe. In fact I have no motive for disbelieving any evidence of ANY plane crash any time anywhere except these ones on 9/11. I have no agenda nor do I have any reason other than IT STINKS!!! It is BLATANT that the government is lying and that is the only reason any of us so-called conspiracy-theorists take the views we do. The really interesting thing is why people like you wish to push the nonsense the government spouts as truth when it is clear they and you are lying. The dam is bursting and if all you have to offer is the drivel above you are about to be swamped by the truth.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:17 pm Post subject:

blackcat wrote:

Debris, not wreckage. The word "wreckage" suggests that pieces of the plane were found miles from the crash site. I have seen no evidence of this; what was described were lightweight items that could have easily been ejected from the crash site by the initial explosion.

The two crashes have similarities, but many differences as well. For one thing, the forces with which they hit their targets were very different. Flight 93 was moving much faster, and came to a stop much more suddenly (it didn't travel as far after the initial collision). In physics terms, its acceleration, or change in velocity, was much greater. Force is mass times acceleration, and since both planes weighed about the same, and one was subjected to far greater acceleration, then that one hit with much greater force.

Why is this important? The greater the force with which an airtight cylinder is collapsed, the greater the escaping air pressure. The greater the air pressure, the farther lightweight materials within the cylinder will be ejected.

Don't believe me? Try a simple experiment. Put some marbles and some confetti in a paper bag. Hold one end of the paper bag, lie it on a table, and pop it. How far does the confetti go? How far do the marbles go? If you hit it with more force, does the confetti go farther?

This demonstrates the basic principle, but it still doesn't tell us exactly what would happen in an airliner crash. The logical error you're making is to try to reason the problem out using common sense. However, common sense only works for everyday situations. Most of us don't encounter metal objects weighing many tons slamming into the ground at hundreds of miles an hour. That's why we have experts who can study these sorts of situations and tell us what happened. If you choose to reject their interpretation, then that only limits your understanding, making it less likely that you will arrive at the truth.

Quote:

I see the man must have been mistaken about the hole because it suits you to disbelieve him even though you accuse me of believing what I want to believe.

What is there to disbelieve? He was clearly making a very, very rough estimate based on what he saw (probably from a distance, unless emergency workers were welcoming the public to move in closer to get a better view).

Quote:

In fact I have no motive for disbelieving any evidence of ANY plane crash any time anywhere except these ones on 9/11.

I, personally, don't believe or disbelieve anything based on motive, but on the evidence. Be that as it may, let me ask you this: Of all the plane crashes you do NOT find suspicious, do you think any of the crash scene investigators involved question the conclusions of the investigation in Pennsylvania? The only people I have heard that doubt the "official" version of events lack the expertise to make such a judgement.

Quote:

I have no agenda nor do I have any reason other than IT STINKS!!! It is BLATANT that the government is lying and that is the only reason any of us so-called conspiracy-theorists take the views we do.

I understand that you BELIEVE they are lying. But what is the basis for that belief? That they are liars?

Quote:

The really interesting thing is why people like you wish to push the nonsense the government spouts as truth when it is clear they and you are lying.

I don't know nor do I care what the government is spouting. I simply look at the evidence available to me. The evidence offered by the experts who examined the tragedy is straightforward, internally and externally consistent, and it makes sense in the context of a coordinated terrorist attack. The evidence offered by conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, is all over the map, depends heavily on pre-conceived assumptions about the dishonesty of experts, and doesn't offer any sane hypothesis to replace the one they are trying to refute. To quote Carl Sagan, the evidence is crummy. That's why I don't believe it.

Quote:

The dam is bursting and if all you have to offer is the drivel above you are about to be swamped by the truth.

I'm being swamped by something, all right, but I don't think it's the truth.

Jay Ref
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:19 pm Post subject:

DeFecToR wrote:

First...this is under the bridge. This is the place you exiled us to...yet you can't stay away. This place has become the one most vibrant spot on the whole board. This proves the wisdom of not banning those you disagree with. A board load of paranoid head nodders would even put the most fervent "defenders of trooth" to sleep.

But alas, I started this thread with some very pertinent why questions. Questions which go to the very heart of the "conspiracy". Questions that address motives and means.

Questions that have not been answered.

Quote:

1.) Assuming that the government LIHOP/MIHOP'ed the 9/11 attacks in order to create a premise for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq...

Why did they use Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese attackers? Why didn't they use Iraqi and Afghan hijackers? This makes no sense to me. Does it make sense to anyone else? If so, why?

2.) If the WTC towers were wired for demolition, why chance flying planes into them? Why not just set them off at night when there is little chance of the detonations being filmed or even witnessed by very many people and then blaming it on UBL?

Why did they need the planes?

3.) Flight 93...why wasn't it allowed to hit a target? This makes no sense as a LIHOP/MIHOP. Why divert and land the plane just to disappear the passengers? OR, why crash/shootdown/or fake the Shanksville crash? It seems to me that in a LIHOP/MIHOP scenario the plane should have reached it's target. Hence the hole in the field in Shanksville seems pretty senseless.

Why?

So 11 pages and still no a single viable answer to such simple questions....

??? why ???

-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense

DeFecToR
Moderate Poster

Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 5:55 pm Post subject:

Jay Ref wrote:

Because they were willing client states that would more readily set up the patsies required for the attacks.

Jay Ref wrote:

2.) If the WTC towers were wired for demolition, why chance flying planes into them? Why not just set them off at night when there is little chance of the detonations being filmed or even witnessed by very many people and then blaming it on UBL?

Why did they need the planes?

Already answered.

Jay Ref wrote:

3.) Flight 93...why wasn't it allowed to hit a target? This makes no sense as a LIHOP/MIHOP. Why divert and land the plane just to disappear the passengers? OR, why crash/shootdown/or fake the Shanksville crash? It seems to me that in a LIHOP/MIHOP scenario the plane should have reached it's target. Hence the hole in the field in Shanksville seems pretty senseless.

Dont know.

Good to have you back though. This place needs a Jay Lord or two.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James

Bicnarok
Moderate Poster

Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 334
Location: Cydonia

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:56 pm Post subject: Re: Why?

all pretty logical really. 1. It doesn´t matter who the Hijakers were as long as they were muslim, and therefore trainable in terrorist camps in Afgahnistan. Maybe the Saudi apparent involment was to threaten the saudi´s in way. 2. They flew planes into them, in broad daylight so the whole world would be shocked and go in the "oh we have to support the poor USA, this could happen to us." mind think. Big events stick in the mind. 3. They wouldn´t let any plane hit the whitehouse, its the like the statue of liberty an important US building for the population, and a Masonic one to boot.

aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster

Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557

Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject: Re: Why?

Bicnarok wrote:

all pretty logical really.

1. It doesn´t matter who the Hijakers were as long as they were muslim, and therefore trainable in terrorist camps in Afgahnistan. Maybe the Saudi apparent involment was to threaten the saudi´s in way.

Well, if you really want to get to the truth, then it should matter that they appeared to be middle-Eastern, copies of the Koran were found among the possessions they left behind, and they were suspected of having ties to al Qaeda.

Quote:

2. They flew planes into them, in broad daylight so the whole world would be shocked and go in the "oh we have to support the poor USA, this could happen to us." mind think. Big events stick in the mind.

Right. The support you speak of didn't last long, did it?

Quote:

3. They wouldn´t let any plane hit the whitehouse, its the like the statue of liberty an important US building for the population, and a Masonic one to boot.

I was wondering when someone was going to bring the Masons into it! Now we've got the Jews, the Masons...has anyone mentioned the Illuminati yet? Or the Knights of Columbus?

Jay Ref
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject:

DeFecToR wrote:

Jay Ref wrote:

Because they were willing client states that would more readily set up the patsies required for the attacks.

So an evil government with enough power, money, and willing minions to:

Convert 4 commercial airliners to drones.
Wire 3 massive office buildings with demolition charges.
"Disappear" all the passengers of the supposedly hijacked planes.
Steal billions of dollars in gold from the WTC vaults.
Order the air defenses of the USA to "stand-down".
Threaten every structural engineer in the world to keep them from exposing the demolition.

...all without leaving a shred of evidence, or a witness of any kind.

These evil geniuses...they needed the Saudi govenment to help them??? These brainiacs with balls of steel....needed Saudi patsies in order to justify an attack on Iraq???

Gimme a break.

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

Already answered.

A bullsh!t answer is not an acceptable answer. You simply can't demo a building that's been struck by a plane. The charges will be dislodged. Wires cut. Some will go off prematurely...all would leave evidence.

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

Dont know.

Finally...an honest answer. Shanksville is another clue that the CT is wrong. Any operation of the scale of 9/11 would have a certain percentage of error. Flight 93 was a screw up of timing and control. It was bound to happen since the terrorists could not control communications of the passengers or the timing of the various takeoffs.

The CT however turns this into yet another bit of the perfect plan; ie the evil government's creation of fake heros through fake phone calls and fake hole in Shanksville.

Quote:

Good to have you back though. This place needs a Jay Lord or two.

I do what I can.

-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense

DeFecToR
Moderate Poster

Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 2:20 pm Post subject:

Jay Ref wrote:

So an evil government with enough power, money, and willing minions to:

Convert 4 commercial airliners to drones.
Wire 3 massive office buildings with demolition charges.
"Disappear" all the passengers of the supposedly hijacked planes.
Steal billions of dollars in gold from the WTC vaults.
Order the air defenses of the USA to "stand-down".
Threaten every structural engineer in the world to keep them from exposing the demolition.

...all without leaving a shred of evidence, or a witness of any kind.

Can anyone spell 'S.T.R.A.W.M.A.N?

Jay Ref wrote:

And it did. Rolling Eyes

Jay Ref wrote:

You really are not very well read are you?

Jay Ref wrote:

I do what I can.

-z

If you can tear yourself away from your Buffy dvds.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James

Jay Ref
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject:

DeFecToR wrote:

Jay Ref wrote:

So an evil government with enough power, money, and willing minions to:

Convert 4 commercial airliners to drones.
Wire 3 massive office buildings with demolition charges.
"Disappear" all the passengers of the supposedly hijacked planes.
Steal billions of dollars in gold from the WTC vaults.
Order the air defenses of the USA to "stand-down".
Threaten every structural engineer in the world to keep them from exposing the demolition.

...all without leaving a shred of evidence, or a witness of any kind.

Can anyone spell 'S.T.R.A.W.M.A.N?

Jay Ref wrote:

And it did. Rolling Eyes

Jay Ref wrote:

You really are not very well read are you?

Jay Ref wrote:

I do what I can.

-z

If you can tear yourself away from your Buffy dvds.

You have made a truly pathetic attempt at answering these important questions; don't you think your Mary Poppins worldview deserves better? Or are you finally beginning to sicken of being a crazy tinfoil hat sportin' type of dude?

How proud your Mum must be....

-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense

DeFecToR
Moderate Poster

Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:49 am Post subject:

Jay Ref wrote:

Oh god OH GOD i'm sorry!! Please, dont shout at me, DONT SHOUT AT ME!!!!

What i MEANT to say was; you are soooo cool and tough and smart and... and...everything.
You know WAY more than me and you DO have friends.
And balls.
But no friends.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James

Jay Ref
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:36 pm Post subject:

_________________ "Knowledge is good" -Emil Faber "God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense

coconut
Minor Poster

Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: Graham, NC

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:40 pm Post subject:

Jay Ref wrote:

So an evil government with enough power, money, and willing minions to:

The power is not a problem. Neither is the money. Willing minions? A team of five engineers could have wired the three WTC buildings with explosives over the course of a few weeks. You have no idea how simple it would be, considering there were no bomb sniffing dogs for a while before 9/11.

Jay Ref wrote:

[*]Convert 4 commercial airliners to drones.

Straw-man. Commercial airliners can be piloted remotely and by computer.

Jay Ref wrote:

[*]Wire 3 massive office buildings with demolition charges.

Again, it wouldn't have taken very many people or much effort, just a bit of time.

Jay Ref wrote:

[*]"Disappear" all the passengers of the supposedly hijacked planes.

It is my opinion that they were on the planes when they crashed. Flight 93's crash site, however, is a tad suspicious, but oh well.

Jay Ref wrote:

[*]Steal billions of dollars in gold from the WTC vaults.

See here for an analysis of the gold stored in the WTC.

Jay Ref wrote:

[*]Order the air defenses of the USA to "stand-down".

Did anybody "order" NORAD to stand down? No, they were distracted by drills. Over (I think) a dozen "fake" hijacked aircraft were injected into NORAD radar screens on the day. Nobody knew if what they were seeing was real-world or part of the exercises. Fighter jets were sent north to Alaska and Canada to fight off an imaginary Russian attack, those jets that were scrambled to intercept the real "hijacked" planes were only flying at a quarter of their top speed.

Jay Ref wrote:

[*]Threaten every structural engineer in the world to keep them from exposing the demolition.

Who made this claim? You must love attacking straw-men. There are structural engineers and physicists who have questioned the offical account in public. Even the majority of educated people can be fooled into believing a lie if all official sources tout that lie with seemingly convincing "evidence".

Jay Ref wrote:

...all without leaving a shred of evidence, or a witness of any kind.

There are masses of evidence, from insider trading to the collapses of the WTC. What reality are you in, exactly? Certainly not the same as the rest of the world.

Jay Ref wrote:

These evil geniuses...they needed the Saudi govenment to help them??? These brainiacs with balls of steel....needed Saudi patsies in order to justify an attack on Iraq???

How else would the public buy the story? You need patsies for something like this, someone to take the blame, in order to generate enough anger and zealotry in the country so they will willingly accept declaring war on innocent nations and handing over their civil liberties. They need to believe there actually is an enemy that "hates their freedom". *Snorts with laughter*

Jay Ref wrote:

Gimme a break.

Why? You think the official conspiracy theory is more plausible? Who benefitted from 9/11, exactly?

Jay Ref wrote:

Do you think people would go along with it if they didn't see the planes hit and have all of those passengers die? How many people would have died if the towers were demolished in the middle of the night? Very few.

It was a clear and obvious psy-op. Bush's ratings went through the roof, the already-stationed American troops on the Afghan border had the justification and support to invade the country. A frenzy of blind ultra-patriotism infected the US.

Jay Ref wrote:

A bullsh!t answer is not an acceptable answer.

Don't ask idiotic questions if you don't want idiotic answers.

Jay Ref wrote:

You simply can't demo a building that's been struck by a plane.

Yes, you can, especially if there are more charges than needed.

Jay Ref wrote:

The charges will be dislodged.

Oh really? What about the charges on the sides of the cores that were not hit by anything?

Jay Ref wrote:

Wires cut.

Explosives can be detonated remotely through radio.

Jay Ref wrote:

Some will go off prematurely...

...says who?? Stable explosives, such as superthermite, will not go off until you want them to. Thermite is extremely difficult to ignite.

Jay Ref wrote:

all would leave evidence.

You're right, and there is evidence. Ever seen an analysis of WTC steel? Look up Steven Jones to find out what the results are.

Jay Ref wrote:

Yeah, you're right, it does seem senseless. Do you believe we have all of the answers?

Jay Ref wrote:

terrorists could not control communications of the passengers or the timing of the various takeoffs.

Is there any proof that "terrorists" were on the planes?

Jay Ref wrote:

The CT however turns this into yet another bit of the perfect plan; ie the evil government's creation of fake heros through fake phone calls and fake hole in Shanksville.

Oh yawn. How likely is it that some incompetent Arabs could hijack four planes with Stanley blades? You are nothing more than a foolish conspiracy theorist if you believe this. You have no evidence other than a "cockpit voice recorder" and the scenario is highly implausible.

Oh, by the way, the voice recorder records sound in the cockpit. It does not record sound in the cabin. So how were "oh so brave heroes" heard on the recorder? You don't think that if it could pick that up from the cockpit that the "terrorists" would overhear their master plot to crash the plane into the ground?

Last edited by coconut on Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:05 pm; edited 1 time in total

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject:

Jay Ref wrote:

ah i see thats where you get your evidence, from a comic book. no wonder you sound like popular mechainc's?

Jay Ref
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject:

coconut wrote:

Jay Ref wrote:

So an evil government with enough power, money, and willing minions to:

Please cite proof of this wild-assed conjecture. 1 example demo of even half the size of WTC7 would do. Please show where 5 techs have demo'd such a building. What? You can't? That's because it's never been done. Now your claim becomes extraordinary. Extraordinary claims are always suspect and require extraordinary evidence...but you don't have any at all!

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

[*]Convert 4 commercial airliners to drones.

Straw-man. Commercial airliners can be piloted remotely and by computer.

No they cannot. The only remotely piloted airplanes are those which have been converted to drones.

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

[*]Wire 3 massive office buildings with demolition charges.

Again, it wouldn't have taken very many people or much effort, just a bit of time.

This is a moronic assertion. Please offer evidence to support it.

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

[*]"Disappear" all the passengers of the supposedly hijacked planes.

It is my opinion that they were on the planes when they crashed. Flight 93's crash site, however, is a tad suspicious, but oh well.

Your sanity is similarly under suspicion.

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

[*]Steal billions of dollars in gold from the WTC vaults.

See here for an analysis of the gold stored in the WTC.

I'll go over the gold issue later...hint: it's just as assinine as the rest of your theories.

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

[*]Order the air defenses of the USA to "stand-down".

More hackneyed bs.

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

[*]Threaten every structural engineer in the world to keep them from exposing the demolition.

Many CTists make that claim. Also as you seem to think there are credible experts who think WTC TT were CD'd please list the structural engineers who have come out in favor of CD theory.

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

...all without leaving a shred of evidence, or a witness of any kind.

There are masses of evidence, from insider trading to the collapses of the WTC. What reality are you in, exactly? Certainly not the same as the rest of the world.

Inside trading is bs. There was none. The put options are not evidence of anything. As for the collapses themselves there are many photographs which document the slow bowing inwards of the impact floors of both towers. NOTE: There is no explosive which could reproduce this effect. Thermite/thermate does not explode...it also does not slowly cause columns to bow inward.

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

These evil geniuses...they needed the Saudi govenment to help them??? These brainiacs with balls of steel....needed Saudi patsies in order to justify an attack on Iraq???

Why are the patsies overwhelmingly Saudi? Wouldn't it be better to recruit Iraqi and Afghani patsies? Your above entry makes no sense. Of course the entire body of convoluted CT's never make any sense either.

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

Gimme a break.

Why? You think the official conspiracy theory is more plausible? Who benefitted from 9/11, exactly?

What does that matter? If your grandma dies and leaves you a million dollars did you not just benefit from her death? Tell me why then we should not lock your silly ass up for murder?

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

More bs. Thoses towers always had poeple in them. If they were wired to come down then they could have come down without warning and cause 100% casualties amongst the people in them at night. That's still a great deal of dead people.

Quote:

It was a clear and obvious psy-op. Bush's ratings went through the roof, the already-stationed American troops on the Afghan border had the justification and support to invade the country. A frenzy of blind ultra-patriotism infected the US.

This is the opinion of a psychotic and paranoid nutcase. It has no basis in reality and as such has no evidence supporting it.

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

A bullsh!t answer is not an acceptable answer.

Don't ask idiotic questions if you don't want idiotic answers.

Hey...I'm only asking questions....like your hero Dylan.

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

You simply can't demo a building that's been struck by a plane.

Yes, you can, especially if there are more charges than needed.

More charges than needed? And leave no evidence? No detcord, no blasting caps? No witnesses? And most damning of all no visible evidence of charges going off...go on now...tell me of the squibs. Demo squibs explode forcefully and then weaken...the "squibs" of the WTC popped out and slowly got stronger as the collapsing floors approached. Explosives don't do that....air pressure forced out broken windows and equipment room vents do.

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

The charges will be dislodged.

Oh really? What about the charges on the sides of the cores that were not hit by anything?

What charges? Do you have even one shred of unimaginary evidence that they exist? No. You don't.

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

Wires cut.

Explosives can be detonated remotely through radio.

Jay Ref wrote:

Some will go off prematurely...

...says who?? Stable explosives, such as superthermite, will not go off until you want them to. Thermite is extremely difficult to ignite.

Great so there should have been even more evidence in the rubble eh? Unburned thermite?

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

all would leave evidence.

You're right, and there is evidence. Ever seen an analysis of WTC steel? Look up Steven Jones to find out what the results are.

You mean the guy who has been terminated by his university? He found traces of sulfur on the steel. Sulphur is a byproduct of thermite. It's also a component in sheetrock...and an additive in jetfuel...etc...etc... To date Steven Jones still has no idea where the sulfur came from! Isn't it more likely that pulverized sheetrock imparted the sulfur? At least there is evidence that sheetrock was present!! Where's the evidence that thermite was present?

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

Yeah, you're right, it does seem senseless. Do you believe we have all of the answers?

Just asking questions here mate...

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

terrorists could not control communications of the passengers or the timing of the various takeoffs.

Is there any proof that "terrorists" were on the planes?

Are you mentally retarded? No? Then how can you reject the voluminous evidence against Atta et al...and cling with stubborn tenacity to the non-evidence provided by Steven Jones?? Why do you use two different standards for evaluating evidence??

Quote:

Jay Ref wrote:

The CT however turns this into yet another bit of the perfect plan; ie the evil government's creation of fake heros through fake phone calls and fake hole in Shanksville.

This is elitist bs...and possibly racist bs. Arab people are quite competent human beings. They are not cavemen. The US government is not omnipotent.

Quote:

Oh, by the way, the voice recorder records sound in the cockpit. It does not record sound in the cabin. So how were "oh so brave heroes" heard on the recorder? You don't think that if it could pick that up from the cockpit that the "terrorists" would overhear their master plot to crash the plane into the ground?

I see you are not above ridiculing the victims. You are a piece of *. The sounds recorded on the CVR are those of people slaming a drink cart into the cockpit door and screaming out their last words. You are not fit to kiss the ass of a single one of them.

-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense

Jay Ref
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject:

Here is the south tower collapse initiation: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=WTC&pl= true Please point out the demo explosion that causes the collapse. -z _________________ "Knowledge is good" -Emil Faber "God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject:

Jay Ref wrote:

Oh dear. I've been debating with coconut over on a different thread and only just seen all this. <sigh> must learn to lurk a bit more before wasting my carpal tunnels.

Good luck with this loon Jay Ref. Remember to say <om> while adopting the lotus position quite often. Or go fishing. Or whatever you fancy, really Cool

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:43 pm Post subject:

jay ref i find you very offensive and boring. your points hold no substance, they just waffle on and on just to try and prove people wrong by using swear words and circumstanial evidence, your points have nothing to hold them up apart from the fact that its what you beileve or have been told, you ask for proof numerous times and yet when given you dont reply or just move to the no-planes section and start of arguements there, even though most of this forum dosnt beileve in no-planes theory. go and research steel,fire, or something to do with physics that hasnt been mocked up by popular mechianc's or have anything to do with 9/11. then at least you will understand the strangness in how the buildings fell on 9/11 even if you still support the offical story.

Jay Ref
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:46 pm Post subject:

marky 54 wrote:

jay ref i find you very offensive and boring. your points hold no substance, they just waffle on and on just to try and prove people wrong by using swear words and circumstanial evidence, your points have nothing to hold them up apart from the fact that its what you beileve or have been told, you ask for proof numerous times and yet when given you dont reply or just move to the no-planes section and start of arguements there, even though most of this forum dosnt beileve in no-planes theory. go and research steel,fire, or something to do with physics that hasnt been mocked up by popular mechianc's or have anything to do with 9/11. then at least you will understand the strangness in how the buildings fell on 9/11 even if you still support the offical story.

...and yet you take the time to reply to me? Why is that?

-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense

Jay Ref
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:49 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

Jay Ref wrote:

I just look at it like a bit of fun Ignatz. If I thought that this so called movement had any hope of expanding beyond the paranoid fringe I'd be seriously depressed.

-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense

marky 54
Mega Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:58 pm Post subject:

Jay Ref wrote:

marky 54 wrote:

...and yet you take the time to reply to me? Why is that?

-z

because you need to resarch certain things before you can make such assumptions like in the post above, where you say there is no evidence for explosions, or anything for that matter. your either in denail or just plain dumb if you carnt even see the point of this forum even if you dont believe there was a conspiracy. most people i speak to say that they can see why people doubt it. and the reason why most brits and americans dont? because the media wont show the stuff in question. i wonder why? could it be they know people are not thick enough to believe the story once confronted with the strange things that day?

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 6 of 7

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum