IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 31st March 2016, 09:17 AM   #41
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
You've presented a false comparison. A heart attack does not have a human perpetrator who made a choice to kill someone. A true analogy would be that my mother was attacked by a robber whilst we were both watching television, she is taken to hospital but dies from, say, stab wounds.

Then the next day someone claims that, in fact, the robber was not a robber and was in fact a serial killer who approached my house at random. He was not after any money but simply wanted to kill someone.

That's a fair analogy, and I can't see how believing either is more or less respectful to my mother.

Stalking and harassment are separate issues. Please stop bringing up straw men.
All analogies fail at some point. In this case the detail matters not a whit.

My question to you was would you feel better or worse under such circumstances?

You simply dodged the question. Try answering it.

ETA: You realise I could easily rewrite the analogy to accommodate your objections, right?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...

Last edited by abaddon; 31st March 2016 at 09:19 AM.
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 09:33 AM   #42
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
ETA: You realise I could easily rewrite the analogy to accommodate your objections, right?
Please do. I'll be happy to answer.

ETA: To answer the analogy you presented, 'very much worse' to the first three questions, 'no' and 'the grief would surely be exacerbated'.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy

Last edited by Georgio; 31st March 2016 at 09:44 AM.
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 09:46 AM   #43
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
I thought it polite to answer to what ‘you’ posted.
It is clear that what ‘Georgio’ posted was a request for you, Criteria, to answer to CaptainSwoop's "Ask him who flew the planes, ask him about passengers and crew."

You did not actually answer that - at all:

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Regarding Swoop’s musings;

While the office of the president may be sacred, the person residing there is no more special than the pope is closer to God.

A belief that there must have been additional conspirators does not change what is currently known to be true about “who flew the planes”, “passengers and crew”.

If the chosen end is not supported by the officially hypothesized means, than an essential truth has not been found.
Nothing in that reply contains an actual answer to "who flew the planes". Nothing in that reply contains an actual answer "about passengers and crew".

So please, display the politeness you announced but didn't deliver, and give us, give Georgio, clear and undodging answers:
  1. Who flew the planes? What is, in your conviction, "currently known to be true about" who flew the planes?
  2. What about the passengers and crew? What is, in your conviction, "currently known to be true about" the named and counted passengers and crew of the four flights AA11, UA175, AA77 and UA95 that were scheduled to fly on 9/11/2001, but never reached their destinations?
I predict that Criteria will once again dodge, and not answer either question to a minimum level of acceptability. That's because he is a Truther - there is nothing that Truthers fear and despise more than straight and honest answers.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 09:57 AM   #44
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
If the chosen end is not supported by the officially hypothesized means, than(sic) an essential truth has not been found.
Which "chosen end"? That planes with people on board and in control of said planes were in existence and impacted the towers?

There is quite the abundance of evidence that there were flights known as Flt11 and Flt175 that loaded passengers, that radar follows these two aircraft until they fall off radar coverage (or are no longer corporeal objects distinct from ground clutter known as the radar skyline of NYC).
So, let's dispense with a no planes at all scenario as being so bleedin' stupid as to not deserve discussion. If the contention is that something else flew into the towers then who flew/controlled (on board or remotely), those aircraft?
whether or not they were large passenger filled Boeings, people did board large Boeings, and those people no longer exist to run and play in this world. Where are they?

Better?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 10:09 AM   #45
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
@beachnut - I would reply to your post, but I wonder what would be in it for me or anyone else.


That's disrespectful to the US President, but we're talking about the murder victims.

If detective A is bad at his job and says that a poison victim was suffocated and detective B is good at his job and says the victim was poisoned, we can't say that the bad detective is disrespecting the victim by getting the method of murder wrong, assuming he's doing his best.


Criteria - could you address this?
Bad analogy.

WRT 9/11, a better example would be where a Fire Marshall determines that a fire was caused by faulty electrical wiring and the medical examiner determines that a victim of the fire died as a result of smoke inhalation being criticized by someone (with no training in fire investigation or in forensic medicine) for not fully investigating the possibility that the fire was caused by spontaneous human combustion.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 11:15 AM   #46
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Bad analogy.
Agreed. Yours is better. But is the person criticizing the Fire Marshall disrespecting the victim? I'm not sure. They are disrespecting the Fire Marshall, certainly. I would say they are disrespecting the victim without knowing it. Assuming they are sincere in their misguided convictions, they think they are helping the victim's family, ultimately. Only after they have understood why their convictions are misguided can they make amends for this unknowing disrespect. That's the point I've been trying to make with abaddon, I think.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 11:27 AM   #47
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Bad analogy.

WRT 9/11, a better example would be where a Fire Marshall determines that a fire was caused by faulty electrical wiring and the medical examiner determines that a victim of the fire died as a result of smoke inhalation being criticized by someone (with no training in fire investigation or in forensic medicine) for not fully investigating the possibility that the fire was caused by spontaneous human combustion.
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Agreed. Yours is better. But is the person criticizing the Fire Marshall disrespecting the victim? I'm not sure. They are disrespecting the Fire Marshall, certainly. I would say they are disrespecting the victim without knowing it. Assuming they are sincere in their misguided convictions, they think they are helping the victim's family, ultimately. Only after they have understood why their convictions are misguided can they make amends for this unknowing disrespect. That's the point I've been trying to make with abaddon, I think.
Westboro Baptist Church protests at funerals for servicemen and women who are KIA. Claiming their deaths are God's punishment for acceptance of homosexuality in the USA.
Are they disrespecting the dead? Do they believe they are disrespecting the dead?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 12:11 PM   #48
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Agreed. Yours is better. But is the person criticizing the Fire Marshall disrespecting the victim? I'm not sure. They are disrespecting the Fire Marshall, certainly. I would say they are disrespecting the victim without knowing it. Assuming they are sincere in their misguided convictions, they think they are helping the victim's family, ultimately. Only after they have understood why their convictions are misguided can they make amends for this unknowing disrespect. That's the point I've been trying to make with abaddon, I think.
Are you saying that you agree that truthers are disrespecting the bereaved?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 12:14 PM   #49
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Please do. I'll be happy to answer.

ETA: To answer the analogy you presented, 'very much worse' to the first three questions, 'no' and 'the grief would surely be exacerbated'.
Do not cherry pick my reply, thank you very much.

You failed to respond to the substantive issue, instead focusing on the ETA.

Please feel free to tell everyone at which point of the sequence I posted would you feel better or worse.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 01:47 PM   #50
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Westboro Baptist Church protests at funerals for servicemen and women who are KIA. Claiming their deaths are God's punishment for acceptance of homosexuality in the USA.
Are they disrespecting the dead? Do they believe they are disrespecting the dead?
I'm not evading the questions (even though I'm sure someone will pop up to tell me I am), I will answer them but first could you clarify exactly how this relates to what we're talking about?

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Do not cherry pick my reply, thank you very much.
Huh?

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
You failed to respond to the substantive issue, instead focusing on the ETA.
I'm getting lost here. You say I didn't reply to your post, instead focusing on the ETA, but the post was to tell me to 'try answering' the previous post, which I did. The ETA was saying you could rewrite the analogy to include my objections, which you haven't done. As I say, I'll answer that when you re-write it.

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
All analogies fail at some point. In this case the detail matters not a whit.

My question to you was would you feel better or worse under such circumstances?

You simply dodged the question. Try answering it.

ETA: You realise I could easily rewrite the analogy to accommodate your objections, right?
What am I supposed to be answering that I haven't answered? What have I cherry picked?

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Please feel free to tell everyone at which point of the sequence I posted would you feel better or worse.
I did! 'Worse' is a comparative adjective, The second 'worse' necessarily means more bad than the first 'worse' and the third means more bad than the second 'worse'. This is surely common sense in the context of the analogy; I didn't think it necessary to point out that I wouldn't ping back to feeling exactly the same as before by the time the second item in your list came along.

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Are you saying that you agree that truthers are disrespecting the bereaved?
I'm not comfortable with lumping people together into 'truthers' and treating people who think that the 911 victims faked their deaths and that there were no planes and stalk and harass the victims' family members in the same terms as those who think that there are things worthy of re-investigation such as the possible use of explosives or the possibility of a controlled demolition on 911 and who don't stalk and harass the victims' family members.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy

Last edited by Georgio; 31st March 2016 at 01:48 PM.
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 02:05 PM   #51
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
I'm not evading the questions (even though I'm sure someone will pop up to tell me I am), I will answer them but first could you clarify exactly how this relates to what we're talking about?
.
In both cases the dead have no connection to the event other than having died due to the event.

Most people have no problem recognizing WBC as disrespectful of the deceased.
Ignorant, slimy, wastes of oxygen and surely an extreme example of this issue as they are.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 02:23 PM   #52
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
@jaydeehess - yes and yes to your questions about WBC. But who are the 'truthers' who should be viewed in the same terms? All of them whether they are a no-plane vicsim 'the victims all deserved to die because some of them were probably Jewish' or someone who, due to credulity and a lack of scientific training thinks there may be a reason to re-investigate the possibility of the use of explosives at WTC? That's what abaddon is saying and I disagree.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 04:31 PM   #53
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Westboro Baptist Church protests at funerals for servicemen and women who are KIA. Claiming their deaths are God's punishment for acceptance of homosexuality in the USA.
Are they disrespecting the dead? Do they believe they are disrespecting the dead?
I'm not evading the questions (even though I'm sure someone will pop up to tell me I am), I will answer them but first could you clarify exactly how this relates to what we're talking about?
Of course they will, because you actively are doing so.

Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Do not cherry pick my reply, thank you very much.
Huh?

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
You failed to respond to the substantive issue, instead focusing on the ETA.
I'm getting lost here. You say I didn't reply to your post, instead focusing on the ETA, but the post was to tell me to 'try answering' the previous post, which I did. The ETA was saying you could rewrite the analogy to include my objections, which you haven't done. As I say, I'll answer that when you re-write it.
ORLY? What, then, is this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
ETA: You realise I could easily rewrite the analogy to accommodate your objections, right?
Please do. I'll be happy to answer.
You replied to the "ETA" in that post and nothing else. That is called cherry picking.

Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
ETA: To answer the analogy you presented, 'very much worse' to the first three questions, 'no' and 'the grief would surely be exacerbated'.
Are you now conceding that truthers DO actually further the victimisation of the bereaved? That they do render the bereavement not only worse but never ending?

Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
All analogies fail at some point. In this case the detail matters not a whit.

My question to you was would you feel better or worse under such circumstances?

You simply dodged the question. Try answering it.

ETA: You realise I could easily rewrite the analogy to accommodate your objections, right?
What am I supposed to be answering that I haven't answered? What have I cherry picked?
You replied only to the last of four lines. That is cherry picking.

Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Please feel free to tell everyone at which point of the sequence I posted would you feel better or worse.
I did! 'Worse' is a comparative adjective, The second 'worse' necessarily means more bad than the first 'worse' and the third means more bad than the second 'worse'. This is surely common sense in the context of the analogy; I didn't think it necessary to point out that I wouldn't ping back to feeling exactly the same as before by the time the second item in your list came along.
Why must you dodge answering the question with such semantic drivel? Why can you not simply state whether such events would make you feel better or worse?


Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Are you saying that you agree that truthers are disrespecting the bereaved?
I'm not comfortable with lumping people together into 'truthers' and treating people who think that the 911 victims faked their deaths and that there were no planes and stalk and harass the victims' family members in the same terms as those who think that there are things worthy of re-investigation such as the possible use of explosives or the possibility of a controlled demolition on 911 and who don't stalk and harass the victims' family members.
It is but a matter of degree. You are simply trying to distinguish between "more disrespectful" and "less disrespectful" as though the bereaved are out there with their "respect slide rules" making careful measurements so as to determine whether they should be more or less upset that truthers have made their lives miserable for yet another year. You seem quite content with this state of affairs. Needless to say, I find this callous attitude to be repulsive.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 04:59 PM   #54
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
You seem quite content with this state of affairs. Needless to say, I find this callous attitude to be repulsive.
Oh, fine. That seems like a good place to stop. I've made all the points I've got and believe what I've posted is sufficient for anyone to understand my position. It's just going to keep going round in circles.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 05:05 PM   #55
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,051
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Of course they will, because you actively are doing so.


ORLY? What, then, is this?
You replied to the "ETA" in that post and nothing else. That is called cherry picking.

Are you now conceding that truthers DO actually further the victimisation of the bereaved? That they do render the bereavement not only worse but never ending?

You replied only to the last of four lines. That is cherry picking.

Why must you dodge answering the question with such semantic drivel? Why can you not simply state whether such events would make you feel better or worse?


It is but a matter of degree. You are simply trying to distinguish between "more disrespectful" and "less disrespectful" as though the bereaved are out there with their "respect slide rules" making careful measurements so as to determine whether they should be more or less upset that truthers have made their lives miserable for yet another year. You seem quite content with this state of affairs. Needless to say, I find this callous attitude to be repulsive.
AS someone who was very anti-Lance during that whole Lance Armstrong thing, I know a thing or three about being on the receiving end of internet mobs accusing me of being a CTer, and being asked "why do I love cancer?" etc. etc.

Yet, even when I knew Lance was cheating, I don't really remember ever feeling imbued with idea that I was "smarter" than anybody else. I just felt that the pro-lance crowd had looked at the facts and drawn the wrong conclusion.

In short, Georgio has a point.

Don't get me wrong, I would definitely say a overwhelming majority of people who take the time to come here to this site are exactly how you describe them to be.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 06:08 PM   #56
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Westboro Baptist Church protests at funerals for servicemen and women who are KIA. Claiming their deaths are God's punishment for acceptance of homosexuality in the USA.
Are they disrespecting the dead? Do they believe they are disrespecting the dead?
I've seen them up close.

My take is that the intent is to antagonize people to the point where they're assaulted, allowing them to file civil actions.

IMO the 9/11 truthers couldn't care less about the victims or the truth.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 06:11 PM   #57
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Oh, fine. That seems like a good place to stop. I've made all the points I've got and believe what I've posted is sufficient for anyone to understand my position. It's just going to keep going round in circles.
My sympathy. And multiple experiences over the past 5-6 years support your prognosis of circling.

When the real situation is "shades of grey" and often "multiple interacting shades of grey" is is well nigh impossible to get reasoned response from either side because both want the scenario to fit their oversimplified "black or white". And "winning the point' wins over "understanding".

The most frustrating barriers to reasoned discussion I see are two "memes":
1) "Truthers are always wrong" - even if a truther says 'The cloudless daytime sky is blue' by definition the truther is wrong therefore that assertion must be wrong.

2) "Bazant is always right" - despite co-authoring papers which apply "crush down crush up" 1D simplifications to WTC.

Again - my sympathy. I agree there can be shades of grey. And multi factor scenarios...and....

Stick to your guns - don't concede BUT also don't waste energy. Simply withdraw after the second time round the same circle of derailing evasion.

ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 09:09 PM   #58
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
@jaydeehess - yes and yes to your questions about WBC. But who are the 'truthers' who should be viewed in the same terms? All of them whether they are a no-plane vicsim 'the victims all deserved to die because some of them were probably Jewish' or someone who, due to credulity and a lack of scientific training thinks there may be a reason to re-investigate the possibility of the use of explosives at WTC? That's what abaddon is saying and I disagree.
All the truthers are either incompetent tools or people who know better but are looking for either funds or fame and could otherwise care less about what happened. Either way, wasters of our oxygen.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2016, 09:37 PM   #59
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
@jaydeehess - yes and yes to your questions about WBC. But who are the 'truthers' who should be viewed in the same terms? All of them whether they are a no-plane vicsim 'the victims all deserved to die because some of them were probably Jewish' or someone who, due to credulity and a lack of scientific training thinks there may be a reason to re-investigate the possibility of the use of explosives at WTC? That's what abaddon is saying and I disagree.
As I said, recognizing WBC as being disrespectful of the dead and their survivors, is easy. Its quite plainly obvious that they care nothing about the deceased. Not a whit. WBC simply sees the funeral as something they can use, a venue at which they can spew their toxic world view.

While not at the level of indecency of WBC, many in the 911TM demonstrate a similar agenda. Starting with a world view that expects, even demands, that extreme events be orchestrated by unseen powers, they are using 9/11 to push that world view.

I find it unsurprising that many people see this as disrespecting of the dead.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 05:46 PM   #60
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
It is clear that what ‘Georgio’ posted was a request for you, Criteria, to answer to CaptainSwoop's "Ask him who flew the planes, ask him about passengers and crew."

You did not actually answer that - at all:


Nothing in that reply contains an actual answer to "who flew the planes". Nothing in that reply contains an actual answer "about passengers and crew".

So please, display the politeness you announced but didn't deliver, and give us, give Georgio, clear and undodging answers:
  1. Who flew the planes? What is, in your conviction, "currently known to be true about" who flew the planes?
  2. What about the passengers and crew? What is, in your conviction, "currently known to be true about" the named and counted passengers and crew of the four flights AA11, UA175, AA77 and UA95 that were scheduled to fly on 9/11/2001, but never reached their destinations?
I predict that Criteria will once again dodge, and not answer either question to a minimum level of acceptability. That's because he is a Truther - there is nothing that Truthers fear and despise more than straight and honest answers.
As a non-participant, I am not in a position to know (anymore than you are), whom, or what, guided the four aircraft in question.

The question is meaningless except for those who were actually involved.
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 05:54 PM   #61
Megaweapon
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 6
Dodge duly noted.
Megaweapon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 06:28 PM   #62
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
As a non-participant, I am not in a position to know (anymore than you are), whom, or what, guided the four aircraft in question.

The question is meaningless except for those who were actually involved.
Please clarify: Are you asserting that nothing is "currently known to be true about" whom, or what, guided the four aircraft in question, and the passengers?
Or do you claim that it's merely you who doesn't currently know anything at all about whom, or what, guided the four aircraft in question, and the passengers?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd April 2016, 07:12 PM   #63
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
As a non-participant, I am not in a position to know (anymore than you are), whom, or what, guided the four aircraft in question.

The question is meaningless except for those who were actually involved.
You don't know who flew the jets? Big clue, the terrorists did.

Due to testimony from flight crews, the cockpits were breached, and the terrorists were flying the planes. The planes were hand flown into targets, or flown by hand with the autopilot; we have little knobs we can turn the plane,,, but it is easier to fly the in 3D with hands using the control column than the autopilots, unless you are level, which 175 was not, nor was 77, or 93; it is possible flight 11 was flown with the autopilots altitude hold engaged, and Atta,or his buddy flew the auto pilot by hand, aka the tiny turn knob... hand flying is easier can can be more precise - don't believe me, I only have thousand of hours in heavy jets, and a total of 44 years of flying experience...


Lucky for 9/11 truthers, no matter how much evidence free nonsense they post and support about 9/11 mocking the murder of thousands; no banning. you have to break the rules
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 04:37 AM   #64
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded and embattled, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 5,203
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Please clarify: Are you asserting that nothing is "currently known to be true about" whom, or what, guided the four aircraft in question, and the passengers?
Or do you claim that it's merely you who doesn't currently know anything at all about whom, or what, guided the four aircraft in question, and the passengers?
It does sound suspiciously like Ken Ham's "were you there?"- the useful creationist principle of equal uncertainty, by which any one person's guess at (or faith in) a chosen narrative is made equivalent to another's evidence for his. And it's no great leap from "I can't know" to "and neither can anyone else."
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 05:12 AM   #65
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
You don't know who flew the jets? Big clue, the terrorists did.

Due to testimony from flight crews, the cockpits were breached, and the terrorists were flying the planes. The planes were hand flown into targets, or flown by hand with the autopilot; we have little knobs we can turn the plane,,, but it is easier to fly the in 3D with hands using the control column than the autopilots, unless you are level, which 175 was not, nor was 77, or 93; it is possible flight 11 was flown with the autopilots altitude hold engaged, and Atta,or his buddy flew the auto pilot by hand, aka the tiny turn knob... hand flying is easier can can be more precise - don't believe me, I only have thousand of hours in heavy jets, and a total of 44 years of flying experience...


Lucky for 9/11 truthers, no matter how much evidence free nonsense they post and support about 9/11 mocking the murder of thousands; no banning. you have to break the rules
Well Beach. If you are so sure you have all the answers it does not really matter what I believe.
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 05:18 AM   #66
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Please clarify: Are you asserting that nothing is "currently known to be true about" whom, or what, guided the four aircraft in question, and the passengers?
Or do you claim that it's merely you who doesn't currently know anything at all about whom, or what, guided the four aircraft in question, and the passengers?
I do not have any factual information that you are not already privy to.

You are well aware of my speculative opinion which is an extrapolation from the WTC7 event.

Sorry to spoil your silly game.
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 05:35 AM   #67
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Well Beach. If you are so sure you have all the answers it does not really matter what I believe.
What is it that you're missing?

You're talking to experts. Are you still unsure who was flying the planes?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 05:36 AM   #68
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
I do not have any factual information that you are not already privy to.

You are well aware of my speculative opinion which is an extrapolation from the WTC7 event.

Sorry to spoil your silly game.
Must have missed something.
Can you walk me through the connection between an empty building collapsing after burning unchecked for 7 hours, and the pilots who did or did not fly planes that struck adjacent buildings, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 08:36 AM   #69
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Must have missed something.
Can you walk me through the connection between an empty building collapsing after burning unchecked for 7 hours, and the pilots who did or did not fly planes that struck adjacent buildings, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville?
+1

@Criteria - I can't speak for others but personally I'm not trying to play games - someone asked me to ask you about what you think regarding who flew the planes on 911 - I simply don't know what your position (speculation) is.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 08:54 AM   #70
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Well Beach. If you are so sure you have all the answers it does not really matter what I believe.
Why do you support lies about 9/11; belief based on evidence free nonsense - the method of 9/11 truth for 14 years of lies.
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
... I am not in a position to know (anymore than you are), whom, or what, guided the four aircraft in question. ...
An old discovery, evidence is ignored when falling for the lies of 9/11 truth. 9/11 truth prefers fantasy, make it up. Doing reality based research, banned in 9/11 truth fantasy-land.

With 9/11 truth, simile is the spark for fantasy... Dan Rather has a simile, 9/11 truth builds a fantasy of BS.
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
... possible conspiracy came after Dan Rather commented about how the collapse of WTC 7 looked like a controlled demolition.
After studying all the available videos of that strange collapse, I could not imagine any logical engineering explanation which would not require human intervention. ...
looked like - is a simile
You built your beliefs, not on evidence, you built CD on a simile.
And you supported your belief not with facts and evidence, but imagination.
Ignoring engineering explanations, you add the fantasy of CD.
You offer no evidence with your beliefs based on imagination and simile.

Skip the engineering, it will spoil your CD beliefs.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK

Last edited by beachnut; 4th April 2016 at 10:31 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 09:01 AM   #71
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
I do not have any factual information that you are not already privy to.

You are well aware of my speculative opinion which is an extrapolation from the WTC7 event.

Sorry to spoil your silly game.
Thanks for verifying my prediction - you are a Truther, therefore you have no convictions and can't and won't give straight and honest answers to straight and honest questions
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 02:57 PM   #72
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
+1

@Criteria - I can't speak for others but personally I'm not trying to play games - someone asked me to ask you about what you think regarding who flew the planes on 911 - I simply don't know what your position (speculation) is.
Georgio, you are one of the few people here who I think has some integrity and not a game player.

Having said that, I believe you are being 'played', and like most people, you like being accepted.

For me, the price of social acceptance here is too high.

Regretfully, "speculation" is a waste of time in this forum because most members cannot restrain their childish incivility. For most here it is way more fun to mock and bait "twoofers".

Frequently the gamers ask for speculation and then have a field day attacking the requested speculation because <drum roll>...it's SPECULATION!
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 03:02 PM   #73
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Why do you support lies about 9/11; belief based on evidence free nonsense - the method of 9/11 truth for 14 years of lies.

An old discovery, evidence is ignored when falling for the lies of 9/11 truth. 9/11 truth prefers fantasy, make it up. Doing reality based research, banned in 9/11 truth fantasy-land.

With 9/11 truth, simile is the spark for fantasy... Dan Rather has a simile, 9/11 truth builds a fantasy of BS.

looked like - is a simile
You built your beliefs, not on evidence, you built CD on a simile.
And you supported your belief not with facts and evidence, but imagination.
Ignoring engineering explanations, you add the fantasy of CD.
You offer no evidence with your beliefs based on imagination and simile.

Skip the engineering, it will spoil your CD beliefs.
Beach, you wave the flag so hard I am surprised you haven't hurt yourself.
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 04:05 PM   #74
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Beach, you wave the flag so hard I am surprised you haven't hurt yourself.
This is the stuff you post to support the lie, the fantasy of CD. You can't be banned for posting an opinion of CD based on simile from Dan the man, and lots of imagination.

You took a simile, added overwhelming woo you can't explain, and imagined there was CD. No big deal, you spread a lie based on imagination, mocking the murder of thousands.

Don't get upset you offer no evidence and have to make up BS imagined about me.

9/11 truth believers are banned for breaking the rules. The truth answer based on evidence, for the OP.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK

Last edited by beachnut; 4th April 2016 at 04:07 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 04:55 PM   #75
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Regretfully, "speculation" is a waste of time in this forum because most members cannot restrain their childish incivility. For most here it is way more fun to mock and bait "twoofers".
Sadly, yes, although I would change 'most' to 'many'. But, as you kindly hinted you understand, I'm not going to do that, and it's me you're answering, not them. I would like to know what your speculation is regarding who flew the planes on 911, with the advance understanding that it is speculation and nothing else.

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Frequently the gamers ask for speculation and then have a field day attacking the requested speculation because <drum roll>...it's SPECULATION!
See above. If you clearly state that it is speculation then these attacks, if they happen, can be completely ignored with impunity.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 06:54 PM   #76
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Sadly, yes, although I would change 'most' to 'many'. But, as you kindly hinted you understand, I'm not going to do that, and it's me you're answering, not them. I would like to know what your speculation is regarding who flew the planes on 911, with the advance understanding that it is speculation and nothing else.


See above. If you clearly state that it is speculation then these attacks, if they happen, can be completely ignored with impunity.
Here is a brief speculative reply.

I do not question the belief that the planes were initially flown by their airline assigned crews.

At some time prior to these flights, it is my belief that each plane was modified to permit independent, automated control.

Once this was activated, the original flight crews lost complete control of each plane.

At that point, each plane was under the control of whomever orchestrated 9/11.
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 07:04 PM   #77
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Here is a brief speculative reply.

I do not question the belief that the planes were initially flown by their airline assigned crews.

At some time prior to these flights, it is my belief that each plane was modified to permit independent, automated control.

Once this was activated, the original flight crews lost complete control of each plane.

At that point, each plane was under the control of whomever orchestrated 9/11.
lol, now that is some top notch evidence free fantasy speculation. Can't get more off the goal of education, critical thinking skills, and being a skeptic; being a skeptic is not usually producing failed fantasy.

Speculation wrong. FDR proves 77 and 93 were hand flown. Thus the billion dollar conspiracy speculation which would take hundreds to do... is BS, fantasy, and not what skeptics do.
Plus, this is not a speculation forum, it is a facts and evidence forum - thus speculation is the opposite of the purpose of the forum - try critical thinking skills instead of making up lies - and conclusions based on evidence, not fantasy.

You need to find a fantasy forum, where speculation is required, and appreciated. Spreading lies about 9/11, 9/11 truth's product.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK

Last edited by beachnut; 4th April 2016 at 07:07 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2016, 08:49 PM   #78
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Here is a brief speculative reply.

I do not question the belief that the planes were initially flown by their airline assigned crews.

At some time prior to these flights, it is my belief that each plane was modified to permit independent, automated control.

Once this was activated, the original flight crews lost complete control of each plane.

At that point, each plane was under the control of whomever orchestrated 9/11.
Man, I can't believe I get this stuff for free! So amazing!

Oh and you know what's childish sport? Accusing your own government of murdering almost three thousand people. Doesn't get any more delusional and immature than that.
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 01:48 AM   #79
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Why didn't sny of the maintenance crews that work on these aircraft noyice all the extra modifications?

Commercial airliners are all identical, they have to be to get certified. Modifying them to fly automatically would involve extra hardware and changes to wiring and controls.
Any extra hardware or changes would immediately be noticed by the crews who fly and maintain the planes, they are highly trained and experienced people, certified and qualified to work on specific types.
Your plan would have to involve the crews.
Why add this extra layer of risk and complication when you can get suicidal fanatics to crash the planes?
Why go to the trouble and complication of crashing one of your modified planes in to a random field?
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th April 2016, 02:13 AM   #80
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,171
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Here is a brief speculative reply.

I do not question the belief that the planes were initially flown by their airline assigned crews.

At some time prior to these flights, it is my belief that each plane was modified to permit independent, automated control.

Once this was activated, the original flight crews lost complete control of each plane.

At that point, each plane was under the control of whomever orchestrated 9/11.
Criteria, you have stated that this is just speculation, and I will respect and acknowledge this by not asking for evidence of any of your propositions.

I am more interested in the origins of this speculation, the timeline if you will.
Could you then tell me where these speculations came from?

Was there something you noticed about the events of 9/11 that led you to form these ideas, which then led you to conclude that there was some sort of "orchestration"?

Alternatively, did you start with an assumption of conspiracy (by persons other than members of Al Qaeda), and these speculations are a post hoc attempt to figure out how it was done?
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.